| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Maciek Sakrejda <msakrejda(at)truviso(dot)com>, "sthomas(at)peak6(dot)com" <sthomas(at)peak6(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... |
| Date: | 2011-02-04 01:36:32 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=V9J0Z-QTM=yJUctR7ECFRE3CJYB8NPXcxzuTO@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com> wrote:
> reality. As a matter of fact, Oracle RDBMS on the same machine will
> regularly beat PgSQL in performance.
> That has been my experience so far. I even posted counting query results.
It sure is, but those count queries didn't run faster because of query
planner hints. They ran faster because of things like index-only
scans, fast full index scans, asynchronous I/O, and parallel query.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | david | 2011-02-04 01:37:14 | Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... |
| Previous Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2011-02-04 01:29:59 | Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH] |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | david | 2011-02-04 01:37:14 | Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-04 01:29:14 | Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... |