Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From William Yu
Subject Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
Date
Msg-id bj7tlm$ngt$1@news.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS  ("Relaxin" <me@yourhouse.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Relaxin wrote:
> I have a table with 102,384 records in it, each record is 934 bytes.
>
> Using the follow select statement:
>   SELECT * from <table>
>
> PG Info: version 7.3.4 under cygwin on Windows 2000
> ODBC: version 7.3.100
>
> Machine: 500 Mhz/ 512MB RAM / IDE HDD
>
> Under PG:  Data is returned in 26 secs!!
> Under SQL Server:  Data is returned in 5 secs.
> Under SQLBase:     Data is returned in 6 secs.
> Under SAPDB:        Data is returned in 7 secs.

I created a similar table (934 bytes, 102K records) on a slightly faster
machine: P3/800 + 512MB RAM + IDE HD. The server OS is Solaris 8 x86 and
the version is 7.3.3.

On the server (via PSQL client) : 7.5 seconds
Using ODBC under VFPW: 10.5 seconds

How that translates to what you should see, I'm not sure. Assuming it
was just the CPU difference, you should see numbers of roughly 13
seconds. But the documentation says PG under CYGWIN is significantly
slower than PG under UNIX so your mileage may vary...

Have you changed any of the settings yet in postgresql.conf,
specifically the shared_buffers setting?


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Mary Edie Meredith
Date:
Subject: [GENERAL] how to get accurate values in pg_statistic (continued)
Next
From: Rod Taylor
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] how to get accurate values in pg_statistic