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 69AD39DCB9E for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:36:52 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26303-03 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:36:53 -0400 (AST) 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 2F6729DCB6E for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:36:49 -0400 (AST) 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 k1FLap7Q019882; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:36:51 -0500 (EST) To: "Jay Greenfield" cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS In-reply-to: <200602152129.k1FLTpiO008671@timberline.ca> References: <200602152129.k1FLTpiO008671@timberline.ca> Comments: In-reply-to "Jay Greenfield" message dated "Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:29:51 -0800" Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:36:51 -0500 Message-ID: <19881.1140039411@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.11 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.110] X-Spam-Score: 0.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/221 X-Sequence-Number: 17207 "Jay Greenfield" 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