X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8499FA1F1 for ; Fri, 26 May 2006 17:45:01 -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 10909-01 for ; Fri, 26 May 2006 17:44:52 -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 104979FA12E for ; Fri, 26 May 2006 17:44:51 -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 k4QKikMt029952; Fri, 26 May 2006 16:44:47 -0400 (EDT) To: "Merlin Moncure" cc: "Postgresql Performance" Subject: Re: is it possible to make this faster? In-reply-to: References: <15919.1148590347@sss.pgh.pa.us> <16119.1148591497@sss.pgh.pa.us> <25668.1148653358@sss.pgh.pa.us> <27137.1148663259@sss.pgh.pa.us> <27570.1148666115@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to "Merlin Moncure" message dated "Fri, 26 May 2006 15:40:22 -0400" Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 16:44:46 -0400 Message-ID: <29951.1148676286@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200605/499 X-Sequence-Number: 19286 "Merlin Moncure" writes: > your time of 150 ms is looking like the slow case on my results. Yeah... so what's wrong with my test? Anyone else care to duplicate the test and see what they get? regards, tom lane