Re: Performance comparison between Postgres and Greenplum

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Scott Marlowe wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Suvankar Roy<suvankar(dot)roy(at)tcs(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> This is what I have got -
>> In Greenplum, version PostgreSQL 8.2.13 (Greenplum Database 3.3.0.1 build 4) on
>> i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
>
>> In Postgres, version PostgreSQL 8.3.7, compiled by Visual C++ build 1400
>> (1 row)
>
> I wouldn't expect 8.2.x to outrun 8.3.x

And you can't directly compare performance of a system running Linux with
one running Windows, even if they're the same hardware. Theoretically,
Linux should have an advantage, but only if you're accounting for a whole
stack of other variables.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
>From pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org Wed Jul 15 23:37:09 2009
Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183])
by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7372E633F4F
for <pgsql-performance-postgresql(dot)org(at)mail(dot)postgresql(dot)org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:37:09 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 39630-06
for <pgsql-performance-postgresql(dot)org(at)mail(dot)postgresql(dot)org>;
Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:36:58 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ew0-f223.google.com (mail-ew0-f223.google.com [209.85.219.223])
by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F374863386F
for <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:36:55 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by ewy23 with SMTP id 23so4392589ewy.19
for <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=zAd2j/NRQceoCSRzNlsqeSjRgrq+BGQ8vrIESsiGTU8=;
b=WfO09u5wWjUyoJRb7cEyxT/WM1tjLY4r8zTMVAabVs3QvEQufug8qkFtXLv6dni5Z7
TIUHUELABFrezvTmPQG9eX1VJgYcBHuNw6PPXzeyKlMCSlRd74Ev6f7VJ7m2FShKPhPv
aM8B5cfPEd0v2gbgSKS7V6oXXSJphHBEX7xiA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
b=fqS+7js4KDYQDotfr5TcBhbo5dIyS2vaYgwwWo4yvSfNoAkOSEoB431WBbhCh6J785
xyhpVHz5RXyFluxbtEvGjCN/cZcjc7AOrHF75AF9bmj7neoT5xdP9erdCYWqbuSbU/Eq
G3j6SqJiU57Csoi6VYbELJBi5ia0EnTDL44Nw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.210.81.9 with SMTP id e9mr9033856ebb.68.1247711811972; Wed, 15
Jul 2009 19:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ac116f9a0907151917o6d87d1a8wf3ff2afb088eb47c(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
References: <530068a0907150804p7455348fp4ec264448b9c36bf(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
<C683C36A(dot)A2F8%scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>
<ac116f9a0907151917o6d87d1a8wf3ff2afb088eb47c(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:36:51 -0600
Message-ID: <dcc563d10907151936y22d01025qcd27d6420c695d4(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: cluster index on a table
From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Justin Pitts <justinpitts(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>,
Ibrahim Harrani <ibrahim(dot)harrani(at)gmail(dot)com>, Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level:
X-Archive-Number: 200907/122
X-Sequence-Number: 34782

I'd love to see it.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Justin Pitts<justinpitts(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Is there any interest in adding that (continual/automatic cluster
> order maintenance) to a future release?
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Scott Carey<scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> wro=
te:
>> If you have a lot of insert/update/delete activity on a table fillfactor=
can
>> help.
>>
>> I don=92t believe that postgres will try and maintain the table in the c=
luster
>> order however.
>>
>>
>> On 7/15/09 8:04 AM, "Ibrahim Harrani" <ibrahim(dot)harrani(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> thanks for your suggestion.
>> Is there any benefit of setting fillfactor to 70 or 80 on this table?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Scott Marlowe<scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>> As another poster pointed out, you cluster on ONE index and one index
>>> only. =A0However, you can cluster on a multi-column index.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)or=
g)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>>
>>
>

--=20
When fascism comes to America, it will be intolerance sold as diversity.