Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE on 8.2
От | Kelly Burkhart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE on 8.2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | fa1e4ce70612141543o8866d7fg417eca88ce9b1344@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE on 8.2 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE on 8.2
Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE on 8.2 |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On 12/14/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Evgeny Gridasov <eugrid@fpm.kubsu.ru> writes: > > This is a Linux Debian 3.1 ontop of 2x XEON 3.4 Ghz. > > PostgreSQL is 8.2 checked out from CVS REL8_2_STABLE yesterday. > > I'm running the same Postgres on another machine, > > with Debian Etch and have the same results. > > Hmph. With 8.2 on Fedora 5 on a 2.8Ghz dual Xeon, I get this: > <snip> > regression=# explain analyze select count(*) from foo; > QUERY PLAN > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Aggregate (cost=44764.00..44764.01 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=1324.846..1324.847 rows=1 loops=1) > -> Seq Scan on foo (cost=0.00..38514.00 rows=2500000 width=0) (actual time=0.046..748.582 rows=2500000 loops=1) > Total runtime: 1324.902 ms > (3 rows) > > Time: 1325.591 ms > regression=# > > which works out to about 0.14 microsec per gettimeofday call, on a > machine that ought to be slower than yours. So I think you've got > either a crummy motherboard, or a kernel that doesn't know the best > way to read the clock on that hardware. There is some discussion > of this in the archives (probably in pgsql-hackers); look back around > May or so when we were unsuccessfully trying to hack EXPLAIN to use > fewer gettimeofday calls. Yow! I notice the same thing on our HP BL25p blades w/2*opteron 270 (four total cores, AMD 8111 or 8131 chipset). 1.25 microsec/call vs my new desktop (Intel Core2 6300) 0.16 microsec/call. I hope this isn't a "crummy mainboard" but I can't seem to affect things by changing clock source (kernel 2.6.16 SLES10). I tried kernel command option clock=XXX where XXX in (cyclone,hpet,pmtmr,tsc,pit), no option was significantly better than the default. Anyone know how this might be improved (short of replacing hardware)? -K
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: