Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
Date
Msg-id 14159.1062651788@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS  ("Nick Fankhauser" <nickf@ontko.com>)
List pgsql-performance
"Nick Fankhauser" <nickf@ontko.com> writes:
> This apparently wasn't the source of problem since he did an analyze anyway,
> but my impression was that a fresh brand new database is exactly the
> situation where an analyze is needed- ie: a batch of data has just been
> loaded and stats haven't been collected yet.

Indeed.  But as someone else already pointed out, a seqscan is the only
reasonable plan for an unqualified "SELECT whatever FROM table" query;
lack of stats wouldn't deter the planner from arriving at that
conclusion.

My guess is that the OP is failing to account for some client-side
inefficiency in absorbing a large query result.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Nick Fankhauser"
Date:
Subject: Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
Next
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Reliability when fsync = false on