On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 15:36, novnov wrote:
> OK, thanks everyone, I gather from the responses that postgres performance
> won't be an issue for me then. If MS SQL Server and Postgres are in the same
> ballpark performance-wise, which seems to be the upshot of your comments, no
> problem. I'd only have worried if there was something like the major
> difference between the two with more complicated queries. I am puzzled by
> the commentor's post to the article, it could be FUD of course but didn't
> particularly sound like the commentor was anti pgsql.
I will say this. Most other databases are more forgiving of bad
queries. Make a bad query and postgresql is more likely to punish you
for it. But I've seen production oracle servers make pretty bad query
plans too because someone used a non-selective sub-select that the
planner couldn't work around.
I love postgresql, and I think the query planner has made leaps and
bounds since I started working with it. But it is not designed to run
bad sql quickly.
