Re: [GENERAL] Tuning queries on large database

From: Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>
To: Valerie Schneider DSI/DEV <Valerie(dot)Schneider(at)meteo(dot)fr>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Tuning queries on large database
Date: 2004-08-05 13:18:47
Message-ID: 1091711927.84496.22.camel@jester
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

> so it takes about 28 Gb instead of 68 Gb !

Huzzah!

> For my different queries, it's better but less performant than oracle :

Not surprising. Oracle has a number of optimizations that we don't have
implemented at this point, particularly where aggregates are involved.

One that PG could use, particularly for Q4, is the ability to execute a
selective sequential scan based on a read of the index -- right now it
pulls in actual data from the table structure while following the index
-- creates unnecessary disk-head movement.

The only solution to that, at the moment, is to cluster the table by
pk_data.

I am curious though, could you run the below query on both systems and
report back times?

select 'Q4', * from data where num_poste between 600 and 625;

I'm wondering if Oracle is using a shortcut since the count(*) doesn't
actually require the data -- just knowledge of whether a matching row
exists or not.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2004-08-05 13:20:17 Re: [GENERAL] Tuning queries on large database
Previous Message Gaetano Mendola 2004-08-05 13:07:38 Re: [GENERAL] Tuning queries on large database