Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D90A9FBDC0 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 02:50:55 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70335-05 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 02:50:52 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA8659FBDCA for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 02:50:52 -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 l365op53028406; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 01:50:52 -0400 (EDT) To: "John Allgood" cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: High Load on Postgres 7.4.16 Server In-reply-to: <009a01c777b5$7c683ae0$3da6d4c6@voyager> References: <009a01c777b5$7c683ae0$3da6d4c6@voyager> Comments: In-reply-to "John Allgood" message dated "Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:06:14 -0400" Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 01:50:51 -0400 Message-ID: <28405.1175838651@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200704/150 X-Sequence-Number: 24027 "John Allgood" writes: > ... The other configuration was RHEL3 and Postgres 7.4.13 and Redhat > Cluster Suite. The application seemed to run much faster on the older > equipment. While I agree with the other comments that you should think about moving to something newer than 7.4.x, there really shouldn't be any meaningful performance difference between 7.4.13 and 7.4.16. I'm guessing some sort of pedestrian pilot error, like not using similar postgresql.conf settings or forgetting to ANALYZE the database after reloading it into the new installation. regards, tom lane