Message-ID: <18133.81.7.89.65.1129392990.squirrel@fmf.vtu.lt>
In-Reply-To: <29778.1129391647@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <17260.81.7.89.65.1129382454.squirrel@fmf.vtu.lt>
	<29778.1129391647@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:16:30 +0300 (EEST)
Subject: Re: Bytea poor performance
From: "NSO" <nso@fmf.vtu.lt>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Importance: Normal
X-VGTU-MailScanner-OpenProtect-Information: Please contact the ISP for more
	information
X-VGTU-MailScanner-OpenProtect: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-OpenProtect-MCPCheck: 
X-MailScanner-OpenProtect-From: nso@fmf.vtu.lt
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.272 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.102,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.374]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200510/244
X-Sequence-Number: 15012

Hello,

 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). I
tryed to monitor network traffic and it is used only for 1-2% of total
100mbit.


> "NSO" <nso@fmf.vtu.lt> writes:
>> Query runs very long:
>> Total query runtime: 23625 ms.
>> Data retrieval runtime: 266 ms.
>> 50 rows retrieved.
>
> Notice that the query itself took 266ms.  The rest of the time was
> wasted by your client app trying to format a 23Kb by 50 row table
> for display.  You need to replace your client-side code with something
> less inefficient about handling wide values.
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
>
>


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.