Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81289FB235 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:26:52 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 72353-01 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:26:47 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from heaven.kostyrka.org (h1634.serverkompetenz.net [81.169.154.44]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56EBB9FB1EC for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:26:44 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by heaven.kostyrka.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6A84FBE5; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:26:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from heaven.kostyrka.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (heaven.kostyrka.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07518-03; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:26:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from andi-lap (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by heaven.kostyrka.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C9FF4FBE4; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:26:40 +0100 (CET) Received: by andi-lap (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:29:09 +0100 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:29:09 +0100 From: Andreas Kostyrka To: "AMIR FRANCO D. JOVEN" Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Slow SELECT on three or more clients Message-ID: <20061115132909.GA22673@andi-lap.la.revver.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r804 (Debian) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200611/108 X-Sequence-Number: 21878 * AMIR FRANCO D. JOVEN [061115 12:44]: > Hi! > > Im new to PostgreSQL. > > My current project uses PostgreSQL 7.3.4. Ancient. Upgrade it, especially if it's a new database. > > the problem is like this: > > I have a table with 94 fields and a select with only one resultset in only > one client consumes about 0.86 seconds. > The client executes three 'select' statements to perform the task which > consumes 2.58 seconds. > With only one client this is acceptable, but the real problem is as i add > more clients, it goes more and more slower. That depends upon: a) your table schema. b) the data in the tables. E.g. how big are rows, how many rows. c) the size of the result sets. d) your indexes? Andreas