Doing some rather crude comparative performance tests
between PG 8.0.1 on Windows XP and SQL Server 2000, PG
whips SQL Server's ass on
insert into junk (select * from junk)
on a one column table defined as int.
If we start with a 1 row table and repeatedly execute
this command, PG can take the table from 500K rows to
1M rows in 20 seconds; SQL Server is at least twice as
slow.
BUT...
SQL Server can do
select count(*) on junk
in almost no time at all, probably because this query
can be optimised to go back and use catalogue
statistics.
PG, on the other hand, appears to do a full table scan
to answer this question, taking nearly 4 seconds to
process the query.
Doing an ANALYZE on the table and also VACUUM did not
seem to affect this.
Can PG find a table's row count more efficiently?.
This is not an unusual practice in commercial
applications which assume that count(*) with no WHERE
clause will be a cheap query - and use it to test if
a table is empty, for instance. (because for
Oracle/Sybase/SQL Server, count(*) is cheap).
(sure, I appreciate there are other ways of doing
this, but I am curious about the way PG works here).
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
