Re: planner/optimizer question

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: "Gary Doades" <gpd(at)gpdnet(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: planner/optimizer question
Date: 2004-04-29 20:54:33
Message-ID: 200404291354.33304.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Gary,

> In this example the statistics don't matter. The plans used were the same
for
> MSSQL and Postgres. I was trying to eliminate the difference in plans
> between the two, which obviously does make a difference, sometimes in
> MSSQL favour and sometimes the other way round. Both systems, having
> decided to do the same index scan, took noticably different times. The
> Postgres database was fully vacuumed and analysed anyway.

It's also quite possble the MSSQL simply has more efficient index scanning
implementation that we do. They've certainly had incentive; their storage
system sucks big time for random lookups and they need those fast indexes.
(just try to build a 1GB adjacency list tree on SQL Server. I dare ya).

Certainly the fact that MSSQL is essentially a single-user database makes
things easier for them. They don't have to maintain multiple copies of the
index tuples in memory. I think that may be our main performance loss.

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gary Doades 2004-04-29 21:08:28 Re: planner/optimizer question
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2004-04-29 20:47:16 Re: Use arrays or not?