Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2482F9FB282 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:50:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 65544-04 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:50:21 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE7BB9FB3B2 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:50:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9QMoB0H026741; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:50:11 -0400 (EDT) To: "Jim C. Nasby" cc: George Pavlov , Tom Darci , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: query slows down drastically with increased number of fields In-reply-to: <20061026223650.GS26892@nasby.net> References: <6FB011BE26AACD4CB5F2B505AE0BEB2E020B6E86@MI8NYCMAIL05.Mi8.com> <8C5B026B51B6854CBE88121DBF097A8655C484@ehost010-33.exch010.intermedia.net> <20061026223650.GS26892@nasby.net> Comments: In-reply-to "Jim C. Nasby" message dated "Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:36:50 -0500" Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:50:11 -0400 Message-ID: <26740.1161903011@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.125 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200610/570 X-Sequence-Number: 21699 "Jim C. Nasby" writes: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 03:03:38PM -0700, George Pavlov wrote: >> 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. Even more to the point, psql's time to format its standard ASCII-art output is proportional to the number of columns, because it has to determine how wide to make each one ... if you used one of the other display formats such as "expanded" or "unaligned" mode, there's probably be less difference. regards, tom lane