X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55B5E5293C for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:01:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21875-03 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:01:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102B65280D for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:01:27 -0300 (ADT) 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 j5UL1SUe021581; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:01:28 -0400 (EDT) To: Jean-Max Reymond Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: start time very high In-reply-to: <4b09a0c050630084260f12728@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b09a0c050630084260f12728@mail.gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Jean-Max Reymond message dated "Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:42:06 +0200" Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:01:28 -0400 Message-ID: <21580.1120165288@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200506/600 X-Sequence-Number: 13237 Jean-Max Reymond writes: > so the request run in 26.646 ms on the Sun and 0.469ms on my laptop :-( > the database are the same, vacuumed and I think the Postgres (8.0.3) > are well configured. Are you sure they're both vacuumed? The Sun machine's behavior seems consistent with the idea of a lot of dead rows in its copy of the table. regards, tom lane