From: | "Jay Greenfield" <jag(at)timberline(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "'Stephen Frost'" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS |
Date: | 2006-02-14 21:25:32 |
Message-ID: | 200602142125.k1ELPWiO003835@timberline.ca |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> Hmm, the large number of columns might have something to do with it ...
> what datatypes are the columns?
All sorts, but mostly float4 and varchar(2 to 10)
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:03 PM
To: Jay Greenfield
Cc: 'Stephen Frost'; pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres slower than MS ACCESS
"Jay Greenfield" <jag(at)timberline(dot)ca> writes:
> The table is 1.2 million rows X 246 columns. The only index is the
primary
> key. I will try to remove that index to see if that improves performance
at
> all.
Hmm, the large number of columns might have something to do with it ...
what datatypes are the columns?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paul Khavkine | 2006-02-14 21:36:54 | 8.2.1 on FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE |
Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2006-02-14 21:04:05 | Re: SQL Function Performance |