X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CCB2D9E36 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:24:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07058-01 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:24:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6202BD954A for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:24:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j9FGOOmI000137; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:24:24 -0400 (EDT) To: "NSO" Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Bytea poor performance In-reply-to: <18133.81.7.89.65.1129392990.squirrel@fmf.vtu.lt> References: <17260.81.7.89.65.1129382454.squirrel@fmf.vtu.lt> <29778.1129391647@sss.pgh.pa.us> <18133.81.7.89.65.1129392990.squirrel@fmf.vtu.lt> Comments: In-reply-to "NSO" message dated "Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:16:30 +0300" Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:24:24 -0400 Message-ID: <136.1129393464@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/245 X-Sequence-Number: 15013 "NSO" writes: > Yes, I can understand that, but then why the same app on the server > machine is done in 4 seconds? (big difference from 20-30 seconds). That would suggest a networking problem, which is a bit outside my expertise. If the client machine is running Windows, we have seen problems of that sort before from (IIRC) various third-party add-ons that fool around with networking behavior. Try searching the archives. regards, tom lane