Re: Postgresql simple query performance question

Hi,
The table has 43 columns. I have attached the columns-list.They have many char() and numeric columns.
For the table size, these are the corresponding entries from the pg_class
foo is the table and the others are some of its indexes.

relname reltuples relpages
foo 2.9384E7 825699
foo_idx_pat 2.9384E7 684995
foo_idx_service 2.9384E7 433549
foo_idx_serv 2.9384E7 433435
foo_pk 2.9384E7 109057

Thanks
Sharmila

----- Original Message ----
From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: SHARMILA JOTHIRAJAH <sharmi_jo(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2007 8:03:48 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql simple query performance question

"SHARMILA JOTHIRAJAH" <sharmi_jo(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:

> I understand that. But why is that when oracle is given a hint to do
full
> table scan instead of using index to get the count, it is still
faster than
> postgres when both has the same explain plan? Oracle takes 34 sec and
> postgres takes 1 m10 sec . Is there anything that can be done in
postgresql
> for speeding this up?

How large are the actual respective data files?

What are the columns in these tables? Do you have many char() and
NUMERIC
columns?

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning

---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com