Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB6BA64FCFF for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:48:57 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 42167-08 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:48:50 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.178]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3B364FCBB for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:48:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id d37so96305pye.29 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:48:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=rwyjr4gViac4rElFoGc+9YUhLiUKypDB4jEvreJxvog=; b=RbD/Xe0o8FA/HLZaolm2bpdKYf3Mxr2htrFukwQubJOIn4VfGrvgUoaDW7zCitr0iB Hz1mZ4i262ttVIie0ZnriuwAKp9EzhOdI2eLiNfyUw2aZMYQaLVJjJa6jOxryEB5ZFHO OMiiVM8GIww4T4KR8aY1AyUBi6SaPUafx2Vx0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=gbCZo17EGWN4IAmsMhProlITXGi604HGRaT2HAtmRWJHTpeJC81IHgHtwkyM4500d7 uScfCG9ztES9w37r61NFukVDPpmp8yMCtPhAu+dr8yMlxjelMehptYfY/kQu5mBwY1Tv IvzfBW/bEFMWOo/EgMWE+aYvL0SFbG2usl2iQ= Received: by 10.65.20.18 with SMTP id x18mr344292qbi.28.1219348131546; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.200.5 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:18:51 +0530 From: "c k" To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org, pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Query performance difference MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_30478_4912040.1219348131500" X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200808/112 X-Sequence-Number: 29957 ------=_Part_30478_4912040.1219348131500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hello, I have a question regarding query performance from two pgsql applications. PGadmin III 1.8 and Navicat for postgresql 8. Both connected to same server on local machine 8.3 and runs a same query for appox. 1,60,000 rows with one min, one max and addition of the min and max values on two tables joined on an integer column gives different query execution times with noticible difference. PGAdmin gives 9350ms and Navicat gives 2110ms. Why? What will be the difference? Is it in their query execution methods, with/without indexes etc?. Thanks CPK ------=_Part_30478_4912040.1219348131500 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Hello,
I have a question regarding query performance from two pgsql applications. PGadmin III 1.8 and Navicat for postgresql 8. Both connected to same server on local machine 8.3 and runs a same query for appox. 1,60,000 rows with one min, one max and addition of the min and max values on two tables joined on an integer column gives different query execution times with noticible difference. PGAdmin gives 9350ms and Navicat gives 2110ms. Why? What will be the difference?
Is it in their query execution methods, with/without indexes etc?.
Thanks

CPK
------=_Part_30478_4912040.1219348131500--