I suppose comparing postgres running on a single processor laptop to sql server running
on a dual processor machine wouldn't help you determine what sql server does better.
If it might let me know.
Aside from maybe having the planner reorder joins for you I would guess that it is sql
servers support for parallelism.
Mike
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:34:31 -0500, Tom Lane wrote
> "Tomi N/A" <hefest@gmail.com> writes:
> > 2006/12/4, Ian Harding <harding.ian@gmail.com>:
> >> Amen. When I migrated from MSSQL to PostgreSQL (4 years ago), I found
> >> out exactly how seriously MS SQL coddles you when it comes to its "Oh,
> >> I know what you really meant" query planning. I committed some sins
> >> MS SQL covered up nicely and PostgreSQL flat out crawled when
> >> presented to it.
>
> > I've seen the exact same behaviour last year with pg 8.1 vs. MS SQL 2k.
> > It was an unexpected shock, but it's really not that hard to make
> > pgsql run much faster.
> > There are simply things which pgsql executes painfully slow if you
> > don't write them the way the server expects you to.
>
> These sorts of reports would be far more helpful if they contained some
> specifics. What queries does MSSQL do better than Postgres, exactly?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
