On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
Would it be possible to get a profile (e.g. gprof output) for a postgres
backend executing the query on the Sun machine?
Heh. Never thought of doing a profile!
I attached the entire gprof output, but here's the top few functions.
I did the test, 1
Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll do a profile for hte p2 and send post that in an hour or two
Please redo the linux profile after recompiling postmaster.c with
-DLINUX_PROFILE added (I use make PROFILE='-pg -DLINUX_PROFILE'
when building for profile on Linux).
I spoke with my SUN admin, and this is what he had to say about what you are
seeing.
Sun gear is known to show a lower than Intel performance on light loads, rerun
your test with 100 concurrent users (queries) and see what happens. Also he
recommends installing a 64bit version of Solaris, the
Also, after having taken another look at this, you aren't preforming the same
query on both datasets, so you can't expect them to generate the same
results, or the same query plans, or even comparable times. Please retry your
tests with identical queries , specify the dates, don;t use a
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
Also, after having taken another look at this, you aren't preforming the same
query on both datasets, so you can't expect them to generate the same
results, or the same query plans, or even comparable times. Please retry your
tests with identical
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
I'm still seeing differences in the planner estimates, have you run a VACUUM
ANALYZE prior to running these tests?
I did. I shall retry that.. but the numbers (the cost estimates) are
pretty close on both. the actual times are very different.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Jeff wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
I'm still seeing differences in the planner estimates, have you run a VACUUM
ANALYZE prior to running these tests?
I did. I shall retry that.. but the numbers (the cost estimates) are
