Re: how postgresql request the computer resources - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Richard Huxton
Subject Re: how postgresql request the computer resources
Date
Msg-id 4360F8C1.4040202@archonet.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to how postgresql request the computer resources  (Sidar López Cruz <sidarlopez@hotmail.com>)
Responses Re: how postgresql request the computer resources
List pgsql-performance
Sidar López Cruz wrote:
> Is there something that tells postgres to take the resorces from
> computer (RAM, HDD, SWAP on linux) as it need, not modifying variables
> on postgresql.conf and other operating system things?

Ah, and how is it to know what to share with other processes?

> A days ago i am trying to show that postgres is better than mssql but
> when execute a simple query like:
>
> (1)
> select count(*) from
> Total runtime: 134552.325 ms
>
> (2)
> select count(*) from fotos where archivo not in (select archivo from
> Total runtime: 26747.236 ms
>
> (3)
> select count(1) from fotos f where not exists (select a.archivo from
> Total runtime: 89765.714 ms
>
> (4)
> SELECT count(*)
> Total runtime: 114893.116 ms

> WITH ANY OF THIS QUERIES MSSQL TAKES NOT MUCH OF 7 SECONDS....

In which case they make a bad choice for showing PostgreSQL is faster
than MSSQL. Is this the only query you have, or are others giving you
problems too?

I think count(*) is about the weakest point in PG, but I don't think
there'll be a general solution available soon. As I'm sure someone has
mentioned, whatever else, PG needs to check the row for its visibility
information.

 From the start of your email, you seem to suspect your configuration
needs some work. Once you are happy that your settings in general are
good, you can override some by issuing set statements before your query.
For example:
    SET work_mem = 10000;
might well improve example #2 where you had a hash.

--
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Richard Huxton
Date:
Subject: Re: Perfomance of views
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Update using primary key slow