> "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hm, what were the tests exactly? Offhand I'd expect something like a > SELECT COUNT(*) on a large but not-too-wide table to show noticeable > improvement. > > regards, tom lane I STAND CORRECTED! My tests were high volume record by record iterators, etc. Read and drool, gentlemen.
Merlin =============stock============ esp=# select count(*) from data1.line_file; count -------- 321306 (1 row) Time: 844.000 ms esp=# select count(*) from data1.line_file; count -------- 321306 (1 row) Time: 843.000 ms esp=# select count(*) from data1.line_file; count -------- 321306 (1 row) Time: 844.000 ms esp=# \q =============patched============ esp=# \timing Timing is on. esp=# select count(*) from data1.line_file; count -------- 321306 (1 row) Time: 453.000 ms esp=# select count(*) from data1.line_file; count -------- 321306 (1 row) Time: 468.000 ms esp=# select count(*) from data1.line_file; count -------- 321306 (1 row) Time: 469.000 ms ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
