Re: Seqscan rather than Index - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Steinar H. Gunderson
Subject Re: Seqscan rather than Index
Date
Msg-id 20041217215627.GC8281@uio.no
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
Responses Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>)
Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>)
List pgsql-performance
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:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Error in VACUUM FULL VERBOSE ANALYZE (not enough memory)
Next
From: Pailloncy Jean-Gerard
Date:
Subject: Re: Error in VACUUM FULL VERBOSE ANALYZE (not enough memory)