>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 9:52 pm, in message
<87irr6zq7j(dot)fsf(at)stark(dot)xeocode(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> There have been several times that I have run a SELECT COUNT(*) on
>> table on all central machines. On identical hardware, with identical
>> and equivalent query loads, the PostgreSQL databases have responded
>> count in 50% to 70% of the time of the commercial product, in spite
>> fact that the commercial product does a scan of a non- clustered
>> PostgreSQL scans the data pages.
> I take it these are fairly narrow rows? The big benefit of index-
> come in when you're scanning extremely wide tables, often counting
> matching some indexed criteria.
I'm not sure what you would consider "fairly narrow rows" -- so see the
attached. This is the VACUUM ANALYZE VERBOSE output for the largest
table, from last night's regular maintenance run.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Tomeh, Husam||Date: 2006-02-23 19:57:03|
|Subject: Re: 0ut of Memory Error during Vacuum Analyze and|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-02-23 17:25:22|
|Subject: Re: Slow query |