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

Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql

From: tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql
Date: 2010-11-21 15:56:59
Message-ID: cbf56bcd349aaa08e45ed9dfe42c3545.squirrel@sq.gransy.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
> Pavel Stehule  wrote:
>> 2010/11/21 Humair Mohammed :
>
>>> shared_buffers = 2
>
>> shared_buffers = 2 ???
>
> Yeah, if that's not a typo, that's a very serious misconfiguration.

I guess that's a typo, as the explain plain in one of the previous posts
contains

   Buffers: shared hit=192 read=4833

for a sequential scan. But I still don't know why is the query so slow :-(

regards
Tomas


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2010-11-21 16:25:37
Subject: Re: autovacuum blocks the operations of other manual vacuum
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-11-21 15:44:21
Subject: Re: Should changing offset in LIMIT change query plan (at all/so early)?

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