Re: planner/optimizer question - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Dennis Bjorklund
Subject Re: planner/optimizer question
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.44.0404300723310.3157-100000@zigo.dhs.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: planner/optimizer question  ("Gary Doades" <gpd@gpdnet.co.uk>)
Responses Re: planner/optimizer question  ("Gary Doades" <gpd@gpdnet.co.uk>)
List pgsql-performance
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Gary Doades wrote:

> I should have also pointed out that MSSQL reported that same index scan
> as taking 65% of the overall query time. It was just "faster". The
> overall query took 103ms in MSSQL.

Are your results based on a single client accessing the database and no
concurrent updates?

Would adding more clients, and maybe having some client that
updates/inserts into the tables, still make mssql faster then pg? Maybe
it's so simple as pg being optimized for more concurrent users then mssql?

I'm just asking, I don't know much about the inner workings of
mssql.

--
/Dennis Björklund


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Insert only tables and vacuum performance
Next
From: Joseph Shraibman
Date:
Subject: Re: Insert only tables and vacuum performance