Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20C319FBD6E
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:21:15 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 33317-02-3
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:21:01 -0400 (AST)
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 7D1E29FBC4E
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:21:07 -0400 (AST)
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 l1SHKof2005280;
	Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:20:50 -0500 (EST)
To: Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@mochima.com>
cc: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Upgraded to 8.2.3 --- still having performance issues 
In-reply-to: <45E5B7D2.5020306@mochima.com> 
References: <45E5B7D2.5020306@mochima.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@mochima.com>
	message dated "Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:11:46 -0500"
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:20:50 -0500
Message-ID: <5279.1172683250@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=0.058 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, BAYES_50,
	SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200702/344
X-Sequence-Number: 23398

Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@mochima.com> writes:
> I would have expected a mind-blowing increase in responsiveness and
> overall performance.  However, that's not the case --- if I didn't know
> better, I'd probably tend to say that it is indeed the opposite  
> (performance seems to have deteriorated)

Did you remember to re-ANALYZE everything after loading up the new
database?  That's a frequent gotcha ...

			regards, tom lane