Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Tille, Andreas" <TilleA(at)rki(dot)de>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
Date: 2001-11-19 12:55:10
Message-ID: 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA41EB41B@m0114.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> > There is not much point in arguing a specific query case,
> It is no specific query case. It is the speed of an index scan which
> goes like N if you do it with PostgreSQL and it goes like log N if
> you do not have to look back into the table like MS SQL server does.

I cannot see why you keep saying that. It is simply not true.
MS SQL shows a behavior of O(N), it is simply, that PostgreSQL
because of well described methodology takes longer per affected row.
The speed difference is linear, no matter how many rows
are affected.

Andreas

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tille, Andreas 2001-11-19 13:27:58 Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-11-19 12:39:01 Re: OCTET_LENGTH is wrong