client performance v.s. server statistics

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Zhou Han
Тема client performance v.s. server statistics
Дата
Msg-id CADtzDCkR8O5OJ5bsVs8Lmr3yoi=uuA8GbO-QuNDsnrX9--WubA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответы Re: client performance v.s. server statistics  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Hi,<br /><br />I am checking a performance problem encountered after porting old embeded DB to postgreSQL. While the
systemis real-time sensitive, we are concerning for per-query cost. In our environment sequential scanning (select *
from...) for a table with tens of thousands of record costs 1 - 2 seconds, regardless of using ODBC driver or the
"timing"result shown in psql client (which in turn, relies on libpq). However, using EXPLAIN ANALYZE, or checking the
statisticsin pg_stat_statement view, the query costs only less than 100ms.<br /><br />So, is it client interface (ODBC,
libpq)'s cost mainly due to TCP? Has the pg_stat_statement or EXPLAIN ANALYZE included the cost of copying tuples from
sharedbuffers to result sets?<br /><br />Could you experts share your views on this big gap? And any suggestions to
optimise?<br/><br />P.S. In our original embeded DB a "fastpath" interface is provided to read directly from shared
memoryfor the records, thus provides extremely realtime access (of course sacrifice some other features such as
consistency).<br/><br />Best regards,<br />Han<br /> 

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pg_test_fsync performance
Следующее
От: Andrew Dunstan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: When do we lose column names?