From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: is it possible to make this faster? |
Date: | 2006-05-25 20:54:09 |
Message-ID: | b42b73150605251354j283af4d3i3f24143d26230094@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 5/25/06, Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 04:07:19PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > been doing a lot of pgsql/mysql performance testing lately, and there
> > is one query that mysql does much better than pgsql...and I see it a
> > lot in normal development:
> >
> > select a,b,max(c) from t group by a,b;
> select a,b,(select c from t t2 order by c desc where t1.a=t2.a and t1.b=t2.b)
> from t t1 group by a,b;
this came out to a tie with the group by approach, although it
produced a different (but similar) plan. we are still orders of
magnitude behind mysql here.
Interestingly, if I extract out the distinct values of a,b to a temp
table and rejoin to t using your approach, I get competitive times
with mysql. this means the essential problem is:
select a,b from t group by a,b
is slow. This feels like the same penalty for mvcc we pay with count(*)...hm.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2006-05-25 21:08:50 | Re: is it possible to make this faster? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-25 20:52:27 | Re: is it possible to make this faster? |