Re: same question little different test MSSQL vrs Postgres - Mailing list pgsql-sql
From | Richard Huxton |
---|---|
Subject | Re: same question little different test MSSQL vrs Postgres |
Date | |
Msg-id | 41F7B54C.5020204@archonet.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: same question little different test MSSQL vrs Postgres ("Joel Fradkin" <jfradkin@wazagua.com>) |
Responses |
Re: same question little different test MSSQL vrs Postgres
Re: same question little different test MSSQL vrs Postgres |
List | pgsql-sql |
Joel Fradkin wrote: > Well last evening (did not try it this morning) it was taking the extra > time. > > I have made some adjustments to the config file per a few web sites that you > all recommended my looking at. The crucial one I'd say is the performance guide at: http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/index.php The first half-dozen settings are the crucial ones. > It is now using 137 of 756 meg avail. > it is now taking 8 secs to return 22,000 rows (using pgadminIII in a sql > edit window). That might be too much RAM. Don't forget PG likes to work with your operating-system (unlike many other DBs). Make sure Windows is using enough RAM to cache diskspace. I'm curious as to how this takes 8secs whereas you had 1 second earlier. Are you sure some of this isn't pgadmin's overhead to display the rows? > The EXPLAIN ANALYSE still shows the same as below, but the table has 344,000 > recs of which only 22636 are clientnum = 'SAKS' That sounds like it's about the borderline between using an index and not (depending on cache-size, disk speeds etc). > I am still doing a seq search (this applies to the view question where if it > is a small result set it used a index search but on a larger return set it > did a seq search) in my view, but with the adjustments to the kernel I get a > result in 140 secs (MSSQL was 135 secs). If you want to check whether the index would help, try issuing the following before running your query: SET ENABLE_SEQSCAN=FALSE; This will force PG to use any index it can regardless of whether it thinks it will help. > This is not production, I am still very worried that I have to do all this > tweeking to use this, MSSQL worked out of the box as it does (not saying its > great, but I never had to adjust a kernel setting etc). Since we cannot > afford the 70,000 dollars they want to license it I am not implying I can > use MSSQL, but I could look at other DB's like MYSQL, or Firebird, etc. I'm a little curious what kernel settings you are changing on Windows. I wasn't aware there was much to be done there. I'm afraid you do have to change half a dozen settings in postgresql.conf to match your workload, but PG runs on a much wider range of machines than MSSQL so it's difficult to come up with a "reasonable" default. Takes me about 5 minutes when I setup an installation to make sure the figures are reasonable (rather than the best they can be). > I have a lot of time now (two weeks) in this conversion and do not wish to > give up, I will see if I can learn what is needed to get the maximum > performance. I have seen much information available and this list has been a > huge resource. I really appreciate all the help. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd