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

Re: Index-only scans

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Index-only scans
Date: 2009-07-13 22:22:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote: 
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Kevin
> Grittner<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> As far as our production queries go, based on our experience with
>> several other products against this schema, this is the area where
>> the biggest performance gains remain to be realized.
> There's a logical fallacy implicit in this statement. Namely that
> all potential performance gains out there are already implemented by
> other products :)
No, I'm basing it on having tested our application software with
various DBMS products and obtained benchmark timings.  PostgreSQL was
faster overall than products to which I compared it, but there were a
few standout slow queries under PostgreSQL.  When reviewing the plans
under the different products, the absence of particular optimizations
within PostgreSQL, present in the other products, became apparent.  I
don't base my observations on academic theory or speculation, even if
licensing agreements rarely allow me to share the supporting detail.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2009-07-13 22:27:35
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] large object does not exist after pg_migrator
Previous:From: Jamie FoxDate: 2009-07-13 22:21:39
Subject: Re: large object does not exist after pg_migrator

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