Am 17.04.19 um 11:51 schrieb laurent.dechambe@orange.com:
>
> Here are the logs (with log_error_verbosity = verbose) :
>
> <DBEAVER>
>
> 2019-04-17 11:30:42 CEST;35895;thedbuser;thedb;00000;LOG: 00000:
> execute <unnamed>: SELECT COUNT(1) FROM big_table
>
> 2019-04-17 11:30:42 CEST;35895;thedbuser;thedb;00000;LOCATION:
> exec_execute_message, postgres.c:1959
>
> 2019-04-17 11:31:08 CEST;35895;thedbuser;thedb;00000;LOG: 00000:
> duration: 25950.908 ms
>
> <BASIC JDBC>
>
> 2019-04-17 11:31:20 CEST;37257;thedbuser;thedb;00000;LOG: 00000:
> execute <unnamed>: SELECT COUNT(1) FROM big_table
>
> 2019-04-17 11:31:20 CEST;37257;thedbuser;thedb;00000;LOCATION:
> exec_execute_message, postgres.c:1959
>
> 2019-04-17 11:31:32 CEST;37257;thedbuser;thedb;00000;LOG: 00000:
> duration: 11459.943 ms
>
>
> <PGADMIN4>
>
> 2019-04-17 11:32:56 CEST;37324;thedbuser;thedb;00000;LOG: 00000:
> statement: SELECT COUNT(1) FROM big_table;
>
> 2019-04-17 11:32:56 CEST;37324;thedbuser;thedb;00000;LOCATION:
> exec_simple_query, postgres.c:940
>
> 2019-04-17 11:33:08 CEST;37324;thedbuser;thedb;00000;LOG: 00000:
> duration: 11334.677 ms
>
>
That's compareable. The first one took more time, cold cache. The 2nd
and 3rd are faster, warm cache.
But: we can't see if the execution is paralell or not. If you want to
know that, install and use auto_explain.
Regards, Andreas
--
2ndQuadrant - The PostgreSQL Support Company.
www.2ndQuadrant.com
