From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Greg Maples" <gregm(at)nimblefish(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Rod Taylor" <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
Subject: | Re: Performance - moving from oracle to postgresql |
Date: | 2005-06-27 12:40:29 |
Message-ID: | 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3415C2BC2@Herge.rcsinc.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> There are some immediate questions from our engineers about
performance
>
> "- Oracle has one particular performance enhancement that Postgres is
> missing. If you do a select that returns 100,000 rows in a given
order,
> and all you want are rows 99101 to 99200, then Oracle can do that very
> efficiently. With Postgres, it has to read the first 99200 rows and
> then discard the first 99100. But... If we really want to look at
> performance, then we ought to put together a set of benchmarks of some
> typical tasks."
I agree with Rod: you are correct but this is a very odd objection. You
are declaring a set but are only interested in a tiny subset of that
based on arbitrary critera. You can do this with cursors or with clever
querying (not without materializing the full set however), but why?
Merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | grupos | 2005-06-27 13:32:35 | PERFORMANCE ISSUE ODBC x LIBPQ C++ Application |
Previous Message | Jacques Caron | 2005-06-27 12:05:03 | Re: Insert performance vs Table size |