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

Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql

From: tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz
To: "Humair Mohammed" <humairm(at)hotmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql
Date: 2010-11-21 14:34:46
Message-ID: ef40ef98515c88b82f63c7d6cc421f12.squirrel@sq.gransy.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
> 4) INDEXESI can certainly add an index but given the table sizes I am not
> sure if that is a factor. This by no means is a large dataset less than
> 350,000 rows in total and 3 columns. Also this was just a quick dump of
> data for comparison purpose. When I saw the poor performance on the
> COALESCE, I pointed the data load to SQL Server and ran the same query
> except with the TSQL specific ISNULL function.

350000 rows definitely is a lot of rows, although with 3 INT column it's
just about 13MB of data (including overhead). But indexes can be quite
handy when doing joins, as in this case.

Tomas


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Humair MohammedDate: 2010-11-21 14:53:35
Subject: Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql
Previous:From: kuopoDate: 2010-11-21 14:15:52
Subject: Re: autovacuum blocks the operations of other manual vacuum

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