Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W63zf-0005N3-Pr for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:01:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W63zf-0002Gz-3c for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:01:47 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W63ze-0002Gt-8O for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:01:46 +0000 Received: from smtp.01.com ([199.36.142.181]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W63za-0007Uf-De for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:01:45 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F4C6398009; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:01:41 -0600 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-2.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-2.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jMQsUjqeIJ9F; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:01:40 -0600 (CST) Received: from smtp.01.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70FC398010; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:01:40 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1FDD39800F; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:01:40 -0600 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-2.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-2.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id kPkuoGB9tKbC; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:01:40 -0600 (CST) Received: from [172.47.23.102] (50-0-190-100.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.190.100]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B7EC398009; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:01:40 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <52E023A3.10601@agliodbs.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:01:39 -0800 From: Josh Berkus Organization: PostgreSQL Experts Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ARCEnergo , postgres performance list Subject: Re: Time of query result delivery References: <52DEC2B5.9090700@agliodbs.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org On 01/22/2014 12:19 AM, ARCEnergo wrote: > Hello, Josh. > > Thank you for your response. > I measured that "times" many many times > and always I got larger repnose time from VM-server. > And always server times (EXPLAIN ANALYZE) were very similar. > And several tests with iperf always shown similar results for both Ph and > VM servers. > So, we have practically same server time and same network speed, > but different results for timing in psql. > I wolud like to know what is the reason? The difference would most likely be something in your VM environment. Beyond that, I can't speculate. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance