X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B589FA433 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:13:33 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 78958-03 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:13:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC629FA236 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:13:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8CFDEld016371; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:13:14 -0400 (EDT) To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pi=F1eiro?= cc: Scott Marlowe , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance problem with Sarge compared with Woody In-reply-to: <1158045507.3851.15.camel@codfix.local.igalia.com> References: <1157998456.7540.15.camel@codfix.local.igalia.com> <1158012437.1854.15.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> <1158045507.3851.15.camel@codfix.local.igalia.com> Comments: In-reply-to =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pi=F1eiro?= message dated "Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:18:27 +0200" Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:13:14 -0400 Message-ID: <16370.1158073994@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200609/87 X-Sequence-Number: 20773 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pi=F1eiro?= writes: > * About Postgre version: you advice me to upgrade from 7.4.7 (postgre > version at sarge) to 8.2. Well, I don't want to be a troll, but I > upgrade from 7.2.1 (woody) to 7.4.7 and I get worse, do you really think > that upgrade to 8.1 will solve something? If you really want informed answers rather than speculation, show us EXPLAIN ANALYZE reports for the problem query on both machines. I don't offhand know why 7.4 would be slower, but I speculate that it's picking a worse plan for some reason. regards, tom lane