| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lefteris <lsidir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jochen Erwied <jochen(at)pgsql-performance(dot)erwied(dot)eu>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Air-traffic benchmark |
| Date: | 2010-01-07 14:16:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20100107141638.GE4315@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Alvaro Herrera escribió:
> No amount of tinkering is going to change the fact that a seqscan is the
> fastest way to execute these queries. Even if you got it to be all in
> memory, it would still be much slower than the other systems which, I
> gather, are using columnar storage and thus are perfectly suited to this
> problem (unlike Postgres). The talk about "compression ratios" caught
> me by surprise until I realized it was columnar stuff. There's no way
> you can get such high ratios on a regular, row-oriented storage.
FWIW if you want a fair comparison, get InnoDB numbers.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lefteris | 2010-01-07 14:23:24 | Re: Air-traffic benchmark |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-01-07 14:14:23 | Re: Air-traffic benchmark |