Re: Seqscan rather than Index

From: Steinar H. Gunderson
Subject: Re: Seqscan rather than Index
Date: ,
Msg-id: 20041217215627.GC8281@uio.no
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Greg Stark)
Responses: Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson")
Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Bruno Wolff III)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Seqscan rather than Index  (Jon Anderson, )
 Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (David Brown, )
  Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Richard Huxton, )
   Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Greg Stark, )
    Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane, )
     Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Greg Stark, )
      Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
     Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
      Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Frank Wiles, )
       Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
       Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane, )
        Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Frank Wiles, )
     Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Bruno Wolff III, )
      Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )

On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:47:57AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
>> Must admit this puzzles me. Are you saying you can't saturate your disk I/O? Or
>> are you saying other DBMS store records in 0.5 to 0.2 times less space than PG?
> I don't know what he's talking about either. Perhaps he's thinking of people
> who haven't been running vacuum enough?

I'm a bit unsure -- should counting ~3 million rows (no OIDs, PG 7.4,
everything in cache, 32-byte rows) take ~3500ms on an Athlon 64 2800+?

/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Christopher Browne
Date:
Subject: Re: Which is more efficient?
From: Bruno Wolff III
Date:
Subject: Re: Seqscan rather than Index