X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709B211F6B3E for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2006 11:50:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 50689-04 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2006 11:50:52 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from pat.uio.no (pat.uio.no [129.240.10.6]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D80D11F6B0F for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2006 11:50:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail-mx4.uio.no ([129.240.10.45]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRsIZ-0007Iu-C7; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:50:55 +0200 Received: from ti200710a080-3004.bb.online.no ([85.164.139.188] helo=[10.1.1.101]) by mail-mx4.uio.no with esmtpsa (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.43) id 1FRsIV-0002hC-8T; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:50:51 +0200 Subject: Re: Same SQL, 104296ms of difference between 7.4.12 and From: Rafael Martinez To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1briel_=C1kos?= Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <44367A1B.1090900@i-logic.hu> References: <1144413933.24060.253.camel@bbking.uio.no> <44367A1B.1090900@i-logic.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Organization: University of Oslo Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:53:40 +0200 Message-Id: <1144421620.6928.2.camel@linux.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-3.919, required 12, autolearn=disabled, AWL 1.08, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL -5.00) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200604/132 X-Sequence-Number: 18216 On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 16:41 +0200, G=C3=A1briel =C3=81kos wrote: > > =20 > > Any ideas of what I can test/configurate to find out why this happens? > > Thanks in advance. >=20 > Increase work_mem to 50% of memory, and don't care about=20 > maintenance_work_mem and effective_cache_size, they don't matter in this=20 > case. >=20 The problem is not the amount of memory. It works much faster with only 16M and 7.4.12 than 8.0.7. --=20 Rafael Martinez, Center for Information Technology Services University of Oslo, Norway PGP Public Key: http://folk.uio.no/rafael/