From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Understanding tsearch2 performance
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:55:36 +0200
Message-ID: <i1kc3m$ngr$1@dough.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007141629000.32129@sn.sai.msu.ru>
References: <i1k84l$984$1@dough.gmane.org>
<Pine.LNX.4.64.1007141629000.32129@sn.sai.msu.ru>
On 07/14/10 14:31, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> Something is not good with statistics, 91 est. vs 8449 actually returned.
I don't think the statistics difference is significant - it's actually
using the index so it's ok. And I've run vacuum analyze just before
starting the query.
> Returning 8449 rows could be quite long.
You are right, I didn't test this. Issuing a query which returns a
smaller result set is much faster.
But, offtopic, why would returning 8500 records, each around 100 bytes
long so around 8.5 MB, over local unix sockets, be so slow? The machine
in question has a sustained memory bendwidth of nearly 10 GB/s. Does
PostgreSQL spend much time marshalling the data through the socket stream?
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: ivoras@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Understanding tsearch2 performance
In-Reply-To: <i1kc3m$ngr$1@dough.gmane.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox