On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:49:22PM -0700, A. Mous wrote:
> case, all test win2K machines (Celeron 400 up to pIII 800) retrieved the
> data from disk in under 100ms but took an additional 4000ms to send to the
> local client. This is observed even if QoS packet scheduler is installed.
If you conne
neral@postgresql.org; Joshua D. Drake; Lincoln
Yeoh; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Simple query takes a long time on win2K
> > The confusing thing for me is that so far, the only
> consistent pattern
> > here is that machines running win2k Pro take roughly 4 seconds to
> &
Message-
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 23, 2005 12:04 PM
To: Tom Lane; A. Mous
Cc: Richard Huxton; pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Joshua D. Drake; Lincoln
Yeoh; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Simple query takes a long time on win2K
> > The confusing t
> > The confusing thing for me is that so far, the only
> consistent pattern
> > here is that machines running win2k Pro take roughly 4 seconds to
> > deliver the data to the client, while win XP machines perform much
> > better (<200ms to deliver recordset). I've tried installing QoS
> > pac
"A. Mous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The confusing thing for me is that so far, the only consistent pattern here
> is that machines running win2k Pro take roughly 4 seconds to deliver the
> data to the client, while win XP machines perform much better (<200ms to
> deliver recordset). I've tried
ql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Simple query takes a long time on win2K
"A. Mous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> None of these tests were run over a network - all local.
Nonetheless, the client-to-server communication goes through the Windows
TCP stack, because that's the only co
Yeah, thanks. I did see that post about the QoS and it doesn't help in this
case.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 23, 2005 9:51 AM
To: A. Mous
Cc: 'Richard Huxton'; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Simple que
Queries are issued from, and time values are report in pgAdminIII.
-Original Message-
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 23, 2005 9:31 AM
To: A. Mous; Richard Huxton
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Simple query takes a long time on win2K
"A. Mous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> None of these tests were run over a network - all local.
Nonetheless, the client-to-server communication goes through the Windows
TCP stack, because that's the only comm protocol we support on Windows.
Notice that your EXPLAIN ANALYZEs show the query as exe
] Simple query takes a long time on win2K
> You're right, the Celeron 2400 is much faster than the 200,
> but not that much more than the 1800, and all win2k
> (professional) machines are serving up the records in exactly
> the same amount of time.
>
> Across a network (iss
-
From: Lincoln Yeoh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 23, 2005 7:51 AM
To: A. Mous; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Simple query takes a long time on win2K
They are quite different hardware.
How long does it take for the _first_ time you do the query on the Celeron
machine?
> None of these tests were run over a network - all local.
> Given that the hardware is very different, however, I did
> find it strange that all win2k (Pro, not server) served up
> the records in almost exactly the same time, while the 2.4
> celeron is 80ms!
Note that the granularity of the
> You're right, the Celeron 2400 is much faster than the 200,
> but not that much more than the 1800, and all win2k
> (professional) machines are serving up the records in exactly
> the same amount of time.
>
> Across a network (issuing the query from the 2400 celeron win
> XP to the 233 PII w
gresql.org
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Simple query takes a long time on win2K
> Hi,
>
> I have a table with about 1500 records. My query is very
> basic: SELECT * FROM foo;
>
> With postgres 8.0.1 on Win XP (Celeron 2400, 500MB RAM) it
> returns the results in about 80ms.
How long does it take for the _second_ and _third_ times?
Just for reference. The reason we want to know about subsequent runs
is that things will be cached.
Are the drives on the machine very different?
This is where I am leaning without any further information because
the older machine (in theor
earlier version of postgres and do a little test.
Stay tuned...
-Original Message-
From: Richard Huxton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 23, 2005 4:29 AM
To: A. Mous
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Simple query takes a long time on win2K
A. Mous wrote:
>
They are quite different hardware.
How long does it take for the _first_ time you do the query on the Celeron
machine? The first time. Wait until everything has started up first and the
machine is quiescent.
How long does it take for the _second_ and _third_ times?
Do the same for all the machin
> Hi,
>
> I have a table with about 1500 records. My query is very
> basic: SELECT * FROM foo;
>
> With postgres 8.0.1 on Win XP (Celeron 2400, 500MB RAM) it
> returns the results in about 80ms. The same query on the
> same database, tested on three different win2k machines all
> running 8.
A. Mous wrote:
Hi,
I have a table with about 1500 records. My query is very basic: SELECT *
FROM foo;
With postgres 8.0.1 on Win XP (Celeron 2400, 500MB RAM) it returns the
results in about 80ms. The same query on the same database, tested on three
different win2k machines all running 8.0.1, take
Hi,
I have a table with about 1500 records. My query is very basic: SELECT *
FROM foo;
With postgres 8.0.1 on Win XP (Celeron 2400, 500MB RAM) it returns the
results in about 80ms. The same query on the same database, tested on three
different win2k machines all running 8.0.1, takes roughly 4 s
20 matches
Mail list logo
