X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A736EDAE1D for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:26:16 -0400 (AST) 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 64127-06 for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:26:13 +0000 (GMT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ECC7DAD6D for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:26:13 -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 jA6KQDt2002504; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 15:26:13 -0500 (EST) To: Joost Kraaijeveld Cc: Pgsql-Performance Subject: Re: Performance PG 8.0 on dual opteron / 4GB / 3ware In-reply-to: <1131305633.5882.17.camel@Panoramix> References: <1131283854.15471.4.camel@Panoramix> <25425.1131297440@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1131305633.5882.17.camel@Panoramix> Comments: In-reply-to Joost Kraaijeveld message dated "Sun, 06 Nov 2005 20:33:53 +0100" Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:26:13 -0500 Message-ID: <2503.1131308773@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Score: 0.006 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/104 X-Sequence-Number: 15361 Joost Kraaijeveld writes: > Explain analyse (with PgAdmin): > ... > Total runtime: 5049.467 ms > Actual execution time: 82163 MS (without getting the data) I'm confused --- where's the 82sec figure coming from, exactly? We've heard reports of performance issues in PgAdmin with large result sets ... if you do the same query in psql, what happens? regards, tom lane