From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jay Greenfield <jag@timberline.ca>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:36:51 -0500
Message-ID: <19881.1140039411@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200602152129.k1FLTpiO008671@timberline.ca>
References: <200602152129.k1FLTpiO008671@timberline.ca>
"Jay Greenfield" <jag@timberline.ca> writes:
> I did a run with checkpoint_segments @ 30 (from 3 in 4.35 min run) and
> posted a time of 6.78 minutes. Any idea why this would increase the time?
The first time through might take longer while the machine creates empty
xlog segment files (though I'd not have expected a hit that big). Once
it's fully populated pg_xlog it'll just recycle the files, so you might
find that a second try is faster.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jag@timberline.ca
Subject: Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS
In-Reply-To: <19881.1140039411@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox