On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Andr? Volpato wrote:
So, what is slowing down is the CPU (Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2160
@ 1.80GHz)..In practice, I have noticed that dual 1.8 is worse than
single 3.0. We have another server wich is a Pentium D 3.0 GHz, that
runs faster.
Pentium D models are all dua
Gregory Stark escreveu:
André Volpato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I think we almost reached the tuning limit, without changing the schema.
It's hard to tell from the plan you posted (and with only a brief look) but it
looks to me like your query with that function is basi
André Volpato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane escreveu:
>>> We are guessing that a dual core 3.0GHz will beat up a quad core 2.2,
>>> at least in this environmnent with less than 4 concurrent queryes.
>>
>> The most you could hope for from that is less than a 50% speedup. I'd
>> suggest in
Tom Lane escreveu:
We are guessing that a dual core 3.0GHz will beat up a quad core 2.2,
at least in this environmnent with less than 4 concurrent queryes.
The most you could hope for from that is less than a 50% speedup. I'd
suggest investing some tuning effort first. Some rethinking of your
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Volpato?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane escreveu:
>> So I guess the question is "what is the bds_internacoes function, and
>> why is it so slow?"
> This function is quite fast:
Well, "fast" is relative. It's not fast enough, or you wouldn't have
been complaining
Tom Lane escreveu:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Volpato?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Explain output:
HashAggregate (cost=19826.23..19826.96 rows=73 width=160) (actual
time=11826.754..11826.754 rows=0 loops=1)
-> Subquery Scan b2 (cost=19167.71..19817.21 rows=722 width=160)
(actual time=11
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Volpato?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Explain output:
> HashAggregate (cost=19826.23..19826.96 rows=73 width=160) (actual
> time=11826.754..11826.754 rows=0 loops=1)
>-> Subquery Scan b2 (cost=19167.71..19817.21 rows=722 width=160)
> (actual time=11826.752..11826.
André Volpato wrote:
In practice, I have noticed that dual 1.8 is worse than single 3.0. We
have another server wich
is a Pentium D 3.0 GHz, that runs faster.
...
Postgres read the array in less than 1 sec, and the other 10s he takes
100% of CPU usage,
wich is, in this case, one of the two cor
André Volpato escreveu:
David Wilson escreveu:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:30 PM, André Volpato
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The CPU is 100% used since a few hours ago. Can anyone tell why?
Sounds like you've just got a CPU bound query. The data may even all
be in cache.
Some informatio
David Wilson escreveu:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:30 PM, André Volpato
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The CPU is 100% used since a few hours ago. Can anyone tell why?
Sounds like you've just got a CPU bound query. The data may even all
be in cache.
Some information on database size, alon
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:30 PM, André Volpato
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The CPU is 100% used since a few hours ago. Can anyone tell why?
Sounds like you've just got a CPU bound query. The data may even all
be in cache.
Some information on database size, along with EXPLAIN results for your
qu
11 matches
Mail list logo
