Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Seqscan rather than Index

From: "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Seqscan rather than Index
Date: 2004-12-17 21:56:27
Message-ID: 20041217215627.GC8281@uio.no (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:47:57AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
>> Must admit this puzzles me. Are you saying you can't saturate your disk I/O? Or
>> are you saying other DBMS store records in 0.5 to 0.2 times less space than PG?
> I don't know what he's talking about either. Perhaps he's thinking of people
> who haven't been running vacuum enough?

I'm a bit unsure -- should counting ~3 million rows (no OIDs, PG 7.4,
everything in cache, 32-byte rows) take ~3500ms on an Athlon 64 2800+?

/* Steinar */
-- 
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Pailloncy Jean-GerardDate: 2004-12-17 21:59:07
Subject: Re: Error in VACUUM FULL VERBOSE ANALYZE (not enough memory)
Previous:From: Bruno Wolff IIIDate: 2004-12-17 21:23:45
Subject: Re: Error in VACUUM FULL VERBOSE ANALYZE (not enough memory)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group