Re: quick question abt pg_dump and restore

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: quick question abt pg_dump and restore
Date: 2008-01-09 17:41:51
Message-ID: 20080109174151.GG28750@crankycanuck.ca
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:24:37PM -0500, Josh Harrison wrote:
> For example if I have a query like
> select column2 from ABC where column1 > 20
> and table ABC is indexed on (column1,column2) then Oracle will not goto the
> heap to fetch the tuples. It will return them from the index itself since
> the column information is available in the index.

Ah, I didn't know that. If your description is right, there would seem to
be some pretty severe I/O penalties when using an index that doesn't cover
all the fields you want. I mean, I can see the gain, but it would seem
that's a significant cost. Anyway, no point in speculating about the
implementation details of a system I don't know in detail.

> I had vacuumed and analysed the tables ...tried increasing the statistics
> too. But the performance compared to oracle for these types of queries(that
> i had mentioned above) is pretty slow

I see. Without rather more information, we're not going to be able to help
you. What you could do is take some detailed examples to the -performance
list. Oracle is terrifically capable, but Postgres can usually hold its own
when correctly tuned (there are some cases where it can't, though).

A

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message leonardz 2008-01-09 18:12:42 postgres 8.3 release date and 2008-01-07 Cumulative Security Update Release
Previous Message Josh Harrison 2008-01-09 17:24:37 Re: quick question abt pg_dump and restore