Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DB09FB2DD for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2007 06:35:38 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 71293-01 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2007 06:35:29 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from cassarossa.samfundet.no (cassarossa.samfundet.no [129.241.93.19]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 411D79FB28B for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2007 06:35:33 -0300 (ADT) Received: from trofast.sesse.net ([129.241.93.32]) by cassarossa.samfundet.no with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HwEOt-0007DV-OR; Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:35:27 +0200 Received: from sesse by trofast.sesse.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1HwEOt-0005rD-00; Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:35:27 +0200 Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:35:27 +0200 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" To: Kurt Overberg Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Weird 8.2.4 performance Message-ID: <20070607093527.GA22482@uio.no> Mail-Followup-To: Kurt Overberg , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <371D1936-E96B-4865-AEEF-C82AC41C2982@hotdogrecords.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <371D1936-E96B-4865-AEEF-C82AC41C2982@hotdogrecords.com> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.20.4 on a x86_64 X-Message-Flag: Outlook? --> http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200706/121 X-Sequence-Number: 25154 On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 07:27:27PM -0400, Kurt Overberg wrote: > This query runs great on production under 8.0 (27ms), but under 8.2.4 > (on my mac) I'm seeing times in excess of 50,000ms. Note that on > 8.2.4, if I run the query again, it gets successively faster > (50,000ms->6000ms->27ms). Is this normal? Your production server probably has all the data in your cache, and your Mac has not. Furthermore, they seem to be running on different data sets, judging from your EXPLAIN ANALYZE. How big did you say these tables were? /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/