Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF8F737BA4C for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 23:45:34 -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 59534-03 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 23:45:30 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from relay-2.mail.nethere.net (relay-2.mail.nethere.net [66.63.128.162]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86EBA37BA4A for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 23:45:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from scan-1.mail.nethere.net (scan-1.mail.nethere.net [66.63.128.132]) by relay-2.mail.nethere.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8AD12B5A0; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:45:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta-1.mail.nethere.net by scan-1.mail.nethere.net with LMTP id HQCfH6KYBv9G; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:45:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lisa-james-computer.local (wsip-68-224-174-233.sd.sd.cox.net [68.224.174.233]) by mta-1.mail.nethere.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5A9EF1814; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:45:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48EEC1C5.4090204@emolecules.com> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:45:25 -0700 From: Craig James User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Carey CC: Carlos Moreno , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: "Mysterious" issues with newly installed 8.3 References: <48EE98FE.60100@mochima.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 200810/49 X-Sequence-Number: 31630 Scott Carey wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Carlos Moreno > wrote: > > > Ok, I know that such an open and vague question like this one > is... well, open and vague... But still. > > The short story: > > Just finished an 8.3.4 installation on a new machine, to replace > an existing one; the new machine is superior (i.e., higher > performance) in virtually every way --- twice as much memory, > faster processor, faster drives, etc. > > I made an exact copy of the existing database on the new > machine, and the exact same queries run on both reveal that > the old machine beats the new one by a factor of close to 2 !!!! > (i.e., the same queries run close to twice as fast on the old > machine!!!) > > To make things worse: the old machine is in operation, under > normal workload (and right now the system may be around > peak time), and the new machine is there sitting doing nothing; > just one user logged in using psql to run the queries --- *no-one > and nothing* is connecting to the new server. > > So... What's going on??? Did you do an ANALYZE on the new database after you cloned it? I was suprised by this too, that after doing a pg_dump/pg_restore, the performance sucked. But it was simply because the new database had no statistics yet. Craig