It's strange, when I repeat tests, I get usually times about 10 ms, but cca cca every 5 test it is about 2ms
postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 12,093 ms postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 1,928 ms postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 10,743 ms postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 1,927 ms postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 14,248 ms postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 14,677 ms postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 1,871 ms postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 10,417 ms postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 11,786 ms postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 24,204 ms postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 11,112 ms postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 14,577 ms postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 14,671 ms postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 11,544 ms postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 13,267 ms postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 13,768 ms postgres=# VACUUM x; VACUUM Time: 1,831 ms Regards Pavel Stehule 2008/12/8 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 2008/12/8 Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> How did you measure that? > >> it's simple test > >> create table x(a integer, b integer); >> insert into x select i, i from generate_series(1,1000) g(i); > >> and then vacuum on 8.3.5 and vacuum on current CVS HEAD. > > Hmm. There is something else going on here besides the pg_proc scan. > Even after patching that, the elapsed time for a small-table VACUUM is > typically much longer than in 8.3. But what's really interesting is > that if you repeat it multiple times in quick succession, HEAD's time > jumps all over the place whereas 8.3 is relatively stable: > > regression=# vacuum x; > VACUUM > Time: 61.809 ms > regression=# vacuum x; > VACUUM > Time: 10.743 ms > regression=# vacuum x; > VACUUM > Time: 40.615 ms > regression=# vacuum x; > VACUUM > Time: 10.015 ms > regression=# vacuum x; > VACUUM > Time: 53.364 ms > regression=# vacuum x; > VACUUM > Time: 9.324 ms > regression=# vacuum x; > VACUUM > Time: 43.339 ms > regression=# vacuum x; > VACUUM > Time: 9.336 ms > regression=# vacuum x; > VACUUM > Time: 53.271 ms > > 8.3's time is consistently between 9 and 12 msec on same box and > same data. Anyone have an idea what's causing this? > > regards, tom lane > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
