"Brian Tarbox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not permitted to post the actual tables as per company policy.
Nobody wants to see your data, only the table schemas and queries. If
you feel that even that contains some sensitive information, just rename
the table and field names to something meaningless. But the kinds of
problems I am interested in finding out about require seeing the column
datatypes and the form of the queries. The hardware and platform
details you gave mean nothing to me (and probably not to anyone else
either, given that you were comparing to MySQL on the same platform).
> I did no tuning of MySql. The only tuning for PG was to vacuum and vacuum
> analyze.
If you didn't at least bump up shared_buffers, you were deliberately
skewing the results against Postgres. Surely you can't have been
subscribed to pgsql-performance very long without knowing that the
default postgresql.conf settings are set up for a toy installation.
> all I can do is sigh and move on.
You're still looking for reasons not to answer our questions, aren't
you? Do you actually want to find out what the problem was here?
If not, you're wasting our list bandwidth. I'd like to find out,
if only so I can try to fix it in future releases, but without useful
information I'll just have to write this off as an unsubstantiated report.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
