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 15:42:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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.

OK, I've just realized the tables have 3 character columns, not integers.
In that case the tables are probably much bigger (and there are things
like TOAST). In that case indexes may be even more important.


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-11-21 15:44:21
Subject: Re: Should changing offset in LIMIT change query plan (at all/so early)?
Previous:From: tvDate: 2010-11-21 15:36:25
Subject: Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group