Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04CA864FF9A
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:10:30 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 03718-05 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:10:20 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32BF064FF7E
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:10:22 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m7LJAIdn029596;
	Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:10:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Volpato?= <andre.volpato@ecomtecnologia.com.br>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres not using array 
In-reply-to: <48AD80FA.30100@ecomtecnologia.com.br> 
References: <48AC8292.5000708@ecomtecnologia.com.br>
	<48AD735D.6040403@ecomtecnologia.com.br>
	<23465.1219328880@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<48AD80FA.30100@ecomtecnologia.com.br>
Comments: In-reply-to =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Volpato?=
	<andre.volpato@ecomtecnologia.com.br>
	message dated "Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:51:38 -0300"
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:10:18 -0400
Message-ID: <29595.1219345818@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200808/257
X-Sequence-Number: 31138

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Volpato?= <andre.volpato@ecomtecnologia.com.br> writes:
> Tom Lane escreveu:
>> So I guess the question is "what is the bds_internacoes function, and
>> why is it so slow?"	

> This function is quite fast:

Well, "fast" is relative.  It's not fast enough, or you wouldn't have
been complaining.

> We are guessing that a dual core 3.0GHz will beat up a quad core 2.2,
> at least in this environmnent with less than 4 concurrent queryes.

The most you could hope for from that is less than a 50% speedup.  I'd
suggest investing some tuning effort first.  Some rethinking of your
schema, for example, might buy you orders of magnitude ... with no new
hardware investment.

			regards, tom lane