| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "SHARMILA JOTHIRAJAH" <sharmi_jo(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgresql simple query performance question |
| Date: | 2007-11-07 01:03:48 |
| Message-ID: | 87abpq27ez.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"SHARMILA JOTHIRAJAH" <sharmi_jo(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> I understand that. But why is that when oracle is given a hint to do full
> table scan instead of using index to get the count, it is still faster than
> postgres when both has the same explain plan? Oracle takes 34 sec and
> postgres takes 1 m10 sec . Is there anything that can be done in postgresql
> for speeding this up?
How large are the actual respective data files?
What are the columns in these tables? Do you have many char() and NUMERIC
columns?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-11-07 01:15:40 | Re: Npsql is much faster than ODBC ? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-11-07 00:29:44 | Re: Syntax error in a large COPY |