Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 208A19FB3B9 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:37:06 -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 64613-09 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:36:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E5269FB3B2 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:36:55 -0300 (ADT) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6D34F5643A; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:36:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:36:51 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:36:50 -0500 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: George Pavlov Cc: Tom Darci , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: query slows down drastically with increased number of fields Message-ID: <20061026223650.GS26892@nasby.net> References: <6FB011BE26AACD4CB5F2B505AE0BEB2E020B6E86@MI8NYCMAIL05.Mi8.com> <8C5B026B51B6854CBE88121DBF097A8655C484@ehost010-33.exch010.intermedia.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8C5B026B51B6854CBE88121DBF097A8655C484@ehost010-33.exch010.intermedia.net> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE-p10 amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Hashcash: 1:20:061026:gpavlov@mynewplace.com::MOhkxhcdjmRip98P:000000000000000 0000000000000000000000002ZIM X-Hashcash: 1:20:061026:tom@nuws.com::TJsoXbtxZ5CpNDmJ:000006MBj X-Hashcash: 1:20:061026:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org::+AYcXZfzTuyyLcKy:00000 0000000000000000000000005U2V X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200610/569 X-Sequence-Number: 21698 On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 03:03:38PM -0700, George Pavlov wrote: > i have wondered myself. i wouldn't do it through pgAdmin (not sure what > the best test it, but i thought psql from the same machine might be > better--see below). anyway, the funny thing is that if you concatenate > them the time drops: Sure. Take a look at the output and you'll see there's less data to shove around. -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)