Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS

From: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
To: Relaxin <me(at)yourhouse(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
Date: 2003-09-04 22:28:36
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0309041625300.28714-100000@css120.ihs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Relaxin wrote:

> I have a table with 102,384 records in it, each record is 934 bytes.
>
> Using the follow select statement:
> SELECT * from <table>
>
> PG Info: version 7.3.4 under cygwin on Windows 2000
> ODBC: version 7.3.100
>
> Machine: 500 Mhz/ 512MB RAM / IDE HDD
>
>
> Under PG: Data is returned in 26 secs!!
> Under SQL Server: Data is returned in 5 secs.
> Under SQLBase: Data is returned in 6 secs.
> Under SAPDB: Data is returned in 7 secs.

This is typical of postgresql under cygwin, it's much faster under a Unix
OS like Linux or BSD. That said, you CAN do some things to help speed it
up, the biggest being tuning the shared_buffers to be something large
enough to hold a fair bit of data. Set the shared_buffers to 1000,
restart, and see if things get better.

Running Postgresql in a unix emulation layer is guaranteed to make it
slow. If you've got a spare P100 with 128 Meg of RAM you can throw redhat
9 or FreeBSD 4.7 on and run Postgresql on, it will likely outrun your
500MHZ cygwin box, and might even keep up with the other databases on that
machine as well.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message scott.marlowe 2003-09-04 22:35:08 Re: PostgreSQL Reliability when fsync = false on Linux-XFS
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-09-04 22:13:11 Re: FreeBSD page size