| From: | Reg Me Please <regmeplease(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | SHARMILA JOTHIRAJAH <sharmi_jo(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres table size |
| Date: | 2007-11-13 17:58:21 |
| Message-ID: | 200711131858.21647.regmeplease@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Il Tuesday 13 November 2007 17:36:30 SHARMILA JOTHIRAJAH ha scritto:
> Hi
> I have a table with 29384048 records in oracle and postgresql. The table
> has 47 columns (16 numeric and 27 varchar and the rest timestamp). The
> tablesize in postgresql is twice as much than the tablesize in oracle (for
> the same number of rows and columns). There are no updates or deletes in
> this table. It is a test table that is used only for querying. The tables
> are vacuumed regularly
>
> Even a simple seqscan query takes twice as much time in postgres than in
> oracle. Does postgresql generally occupy more space than oracle tables?
> Thanks
> Sharmila
This's an interesting point fore sure as far as the data types for the two
table are comparable.
If this yelds true, the more space an RDBMS occupies, the slower the access.
I think.
--
Reg me Please
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | dan | 2007-11-13 18:18:25 | Re: Sharing database handles across forked child processes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-11-13 17:26:52 | Re: Sharing database handles across forked child processes |