Achilleas Mantzios <achill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Regarding gettimeofday (2), i wrote this program :
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <sys/time.h>
> int main(int argc,char** argv) {
> struct timeval *tp=calloc(1,sizeof(struct timeval));
> int runna;
> for (runna=0;runna<1000000;runna++) {
> int rc=gettimeofday(tp,NULL);
> long micros = tp->tv_sec * 1000000 + tp->tv_usec;
> printf("cur_time=%u micro secs\n",micros);
> }
> }
Right offhand I'd wonder whether that was more bound by gettimeofday or
by printf. Please try it without printf in the loop.
> 3) Test machine (thereafter called FBSD_TEST) :
> System: FreeBSD 8.1, 4 x AMD Phenom(tm) 965 @ 3.4 GHz, 8GB memory
> DB: PostgreSQL 9.0.2, shared_buffers=5GB, work_mem=512MB, db size=7GB
The shared_buffers setting seems way out of line compared to actual
memory on this machine. Maybe it's swapping.
> i get the following execution times: (with \timing) (note however that FBSD_DEV has a considerably smaller database, the other two are compareable)
> FBSD_DEV : query : 240,419 ms, EXPLAIN ANALYZE query : Total runtime: 538.468 ms
> LINUX_PROD : query : 219.568 ms, EXPLAIN ANALYZE query : Total runtime: 216.926 ms
> FBSD_TEST : query : 2587,465 ms, EPXLAIN ANALYZE query : Total runtime: 93711.648 ms
> The last numbers seem huge.
Are they in fact the same query plans in each case?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
