Quoth "Relaxin" <me(at)yourhouse(dot)com>:
> Yes I Analyze also, but there was no need to because it was a fresh
> brand new database.
That is _absolutely not true_.
It is not true with any DBMS that uses a cost-based optimizer.
Cost-based optimizers need some equivalent to ANALYZE in order to
collect statistics to allow them to pick any path other than a
In this particular case, a seq scan is pretty likely to be the best
answer when there is no WHERE clause on the query.
Actually, it doesn't make all that much sense that the other systems
would be terribly much faster, because they obviously need to do some
processing on 102,384 records.
Can you tell us what you were *actually* doing? Somehow it sounds as
though the other databases were throwing away the data whereas
PostgreSQL was returning it all "kawhump!" in one batch.
What programs were you using to submit the queries?
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
"Computers let you make more mistakes faster than any other invention
in human history, with the possible exception of handguns and
tequila." -- Mitch Radcliffe
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Christopher Browne||Date: 2003-09-04 03:24:19|
|Subject: Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS|
|Previous:||From: Federico Sevilla III||Date: 2003-09-04 03:04:04|
|Subject: PostgreSQL Reliability when fsync = false on Linux-XFS|