Hello
2010/11/21 Humair Mohammed <humairm@hotmail.com>:
> That was a typo:
> work_mem = 2GB
> shared_buffers = 2GB
ok, then try to decrease a shared_buffers. Maybe a win7 has a some
problem - large a shared buffers are well just for UNIX like systems.
I am thinking so 500 MB is enough
Regards
Pavel Stehule
>> From: pavel.stehule@gmail.com
>> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:38:43 +0100
>> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql
>> To: humairm@hotmail.com
>> CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>>
>> 2010/11/21 Humair Mohammed <humairm@hotmail.com>:
>> >
>> > 1) OS/Configuration
>> > 64-bit Windows 7 Enterprise with 8G RAM and a Dual Core 2.67 Ghz Intel
>> > CPU
>> > postgresql-x64-9.0 (PostgreSQL 9.0.1, compiled by Visual C++ build 1500,
>> > 64-bit)
>> > work_mem 2GB
>> > shared_buffers = 2
>>
>> shared_buffers = 2 ???
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Pavel Stehule
>>
>>
>> > 2) Dataset
>> > name,pages,tuples,pg_size_pretty
>> > "pivotbad";1870;93496;"15 MB"
>> > "pivotgood";5025;251212;"39 MB"
>> > 3) EXPLAIN (ANALYZE ON, BUFFERS ON)
>> > "Hash Join (cost=16212.30..52586.43 rows=92869 width=17) (actual
>> > time=25814.222..32296.765 rows=3163 loops=1)"
>> > " Hash Cond: (((pb.id)::text = (pg.id)::text) AND ((pb.question)::text
>> > =
>> > (pg.question)::text))"
>> > " Join Filter: ((COALESCE(pb.response, 'MISSING'::character
>> > varying))::text
>> > <> (COALESCE(pg.response, 'MISSING'::character varying))::text)"
>> > " Buffers: shared hit=384 read=6511, temp read=6444 written=6318"
>> > " -> Seq Scan on pivotbad pb (cost=0.00..2804.96 rows=93496
>> > width=134)
>> > (actual time=0.069..37.143 rows=93496 loops=1)"
>> > " Buffers: shared hit=192 read=1678"
>> > " -> Hash (cost=7537.12..7537.12 rows=251212 width=134) (actual
>> > time=24621.752..24621.752 rows=251212 loops=1)"
>> > " Buckets: 1024 Batches: 64 Memory Usage: 650kB"
>> > " Buffers: shared hit=192 read=4833, temp written=4524"
>> > " -> Seq Scan on pivotgood pg (cost=0.00..7537.12 rows=251212
>> > width=134) (actual time=0.038..117.780 rows=251212 loops=1)"
>> > " Buffers: shared hit=192 read=4833"
>> > "Total runtime: 32297.305 ms"
>> > 4) INDEXES
>> > I can certainly add an index but given the table sizes I am not sure if
>> > that
>> > is a factor. This by no means is a large dataset less than 350,000 rows
>> > in
>> > total and 3 columns. Also this was just a quick dump of data for
>> > comparison
>> > purpose. When I saw the poor performance on the COALESCE, I pointed the
>> > data
>> > load to SQL Server and ran the same query except with the TSQL specific
>> > ISNULL function.
>> >
>
