Re: Sun vs a P2. Interesting results. - Mailing list pgsql-performance
From | Darcy Buskermolen |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Sun vs a P2. Interesting results. |
Date | |
Msg-id | 200308261201.55733.darcy@wavefire.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Sun vs a P2. Interesting results. (Jeff <threshar@torgo.978.org>) |
Responses |
Re: Sun vs a P2. Interesting results.
|
List | pgsql-performance |
I'm still seeing differences in the planner estimates, have you run a VACUUM ANALYZE prior to running these tests? Also, are the disk subsystems in these 2 systems the same? You may be seeing some discrepancies in things spindle speed, U160 vs U320, throughput on specific RAID controlers, different blocksize, ect. On Tuesday 26 August 2003 11:41, Jeff wrote: > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Darcy Buskermolen wrote: > > Also, after having taken another look at this, you aren't preforming the > > same query on both datasets, so you can't expect them to generate the > > same results, or the same query plans, or even comparable times. Please > > retry your tests with identical queries , specify the dates, don;t use a > > function like now() to retrieve them. > > Given what you said in the previous email and this one here's some new > information. I redid the query to use a static starting time and I ran > 19 beaters in parallel. After I send this mail out I'll try it with 40. > > New Query: > > select userkey, dob, email, gender, country from userprofile > where gender_v and gender='m' > and country_v and country = 'br' > and dob_v > and dob >= '2003-08-26'::timestamptz - '29 > years'::interval > and dob <= '2003-08-26'::timestamptz - '18 years'::interval > order by dob asc > limit 20 > offset 100 > > Explain Analyze's: (basically the same) > Sun: > Limit (cost=2390.05..2390.10 rows=20 width=67) (actual > time=1098.34..1098.39 rows=20 loops=1) > -> Sort (cost=2389.80..2390.24 rows=178 width=67) (actual > time=1098.16..1098.28 rows=121 loops=1) > Sort Key: dob > -> Seq Scan on imuserprofile (cost=0.00..2383.14 rows=178 > width=67) (actual time=0.38..1068.94 rows=1783 loops=1) > Filter: (gender_v AND (gender = 'm'::character varying) AND > country_v AND (country = 'br'::character varying) AND dob_v AND (dob >= > '1974-08-26 00:00:00-04'::timestamp with time zone) AND (dob <= > '1985-08-26 00:00:00-04'::timestamp with time zone)) > Total runtime: 1099.93 msec > (6 rows) > > > p2 > > Limit (cost=2353.38..2353.43 rows=20 width=67) (actual > time=371.75..371.83 rows=20 loops=1) > -> Sort (cost=2353.13..2353.60 rows=186 width=67) (actual > time=371.46..371.63 rows=121 loops=1) > Sort Key: dob > -> Seq Scan on imuserprofile (cost=0.00..2346.14 rows=186 > width=67) (actual time=0.17..345.53 rows=1783 loops=1) > Filter: (gender_v AND (gender = 'm'::character varying) AND > country_v AND (country = 'br'::character varying) AND dob_v AND (dob >= > '1974-08-26 00:00:00-04'::timestamp with time zone) AND (dob <= > '1985-08-26 00:00:00-04'::timestamp with time zone)) > Total runtime: 372.63 msec > (6 rows) > > > I ran this query 100 times per beater (no prepared queries) and ran > 19 beaters in parellel. > > P2 Machine: 345sec avg > Sun: 565sec avg > > > > I know solaris/sun isn't the preferred pg platform, and we have plenty of > capicty even with these numbers, I just find it a little suprising the > speed difference. -- Darcy Buskermolen Wavefire Technologies Corp. ph: 250.717.0200 fx: 250.763.1759 http://www.wavefire.com
pgsql-performance by date: