From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | mark durrant <markd89(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Select performance vs. mssql |
Date: | 2005-05-24 06:18:36 |
Message-ID: | 4292C73C.60006@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> select count(*) from mtable where day='Mon'
>
> Results:
>
> 1. P3 600 512MB RAM MSSQL. It takes about 4-5 secs to
> run. If I run a few queries and everything is cached,
> it is sometimes just 1 second.
>
> 2. Athlon 1.3 Ghz 1GB RAM. PostgreSQL takes 7 seconds.
> I have played with the buffers setting and currently
> have it at 7500. At 20000 it took over 20 seconds to
> run.
>
> 5 seconds vs 7 isn't that big of a deal, but 1 second
> vs 7 seconds is. Also, the slower performance is with
> much lesser hardware.
Post the result of this for us:
explain analyze select count(*) from mtable where day='Mon';
On both machines.
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | mark durrant | 2005-05-24 06:40:34 | Re: Select performance vs. mssql |
Previous Message | mark durrant | 2005-05-24 05:47:15 | Select performance vs. mssql |