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

Re: Select performance vs. mssql

From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: mark durrant <markd89(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Select performance vs. mssql
Date: 2005-05-24 06:18:36
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
> select count(*) from mtable where day='Mon'
> Results:
> 1. P3 600 512MB RAM MSSQL. It takes about 4-5 secs to
> run. If I run a few queries and everything is cached,
> it is sometimes  just 1 second.
> 2. Athlon 1.3 Ghz 1GB RAM. PostgreSQL takes 7 seconds.
> I have played with the buffers setting and currently
> have it at 7500. At 20000 it took over 20 seconds to
> run.
> 5 seconds vs 7 isn't that big of a deal, but 1 second
> vs 7 seconds is. Also, the slower performance is with
> much lesser hardware.

Post the result of this for us:

explain analyze select count(*) from mtable where day='Mon';

On both machines.


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: mark durrantDate: 2005-05-24 06:40:34
Subject: Re: Select performance vs. mssql
Previous:From: mark durrantDate: 2005-05-24 05:47:15
Subject: Select performance vs. mssql

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