I tried the SET ENABLE_SEQSCAN=FALSE;
And the result took 29 secs instead of 117.
After playing around with the cache and buffers etc I see I am no longer
doing any swapping (not sure how I got the 100 sec response might have been
shared buffers set higher, been goofing around with it all morning).
My worry here is it should obviously use an index scan so something is not
setup correctly yet. I don't want to second guess the analyzer (or is this a
normal thing?)
Least it is blowing the doors off MSSQL (which is what I touted to my boss
and was pretty upset when I got no result last night).
The 117 was before I forced the seq off so even doing a seq I am getting
results now that are better then MSSQL.
Joel Fradkin
Wazagua, Inc.
2520 Trailmate Dr
Sarasota, Florida 34243
Tel. 941-753-7111 ext 305
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.wazagua.com
Powered by Wazagua
Providing you with the latest Web-based technology & advanced tools.
C 2004. WAZAGUA, Inc. All rights reserved. WAZAGUA, Inc
This email message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete and destroy
all copies of the original message, including attachments.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Huxton [mailto:dev@archonet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:21 AM
To: Joel Fradkin
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] same question little different test MSSQL vrs Postgres
Joel Fradkin wrote:
Well last evening (did not try it this morning) it was taking the extra
time.
I have made some adjustments to the config file per a few web sites that
you
all recommended my looking at.
The crucial one I'd say is the performance guide at:
http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/index.php
The first half-dozen settings are the crucial ones.
It is now using 137 of 756 meg avail.
it is now taking 8 secs to return 22,000 rows (using pgadminIII in a sql
edit window).
That might be too much RAM. Don't forget PG likes to work with your
operating-system (unlike many other DBs). Make sure Windows is using
enough RAM to cache diskspace.
I'm curious as to how this takes 8secs whereas you had 1 second earlier.
Are you sure some of this isn't pgadmin's overhead to display the rows?
The EXPLAIN ANALYSE still shows the same as below, but the table has
344,000
recs of which only 22636 are clientnum = 'SAKS'
That sounds like it's about the borderline between using an index and
not (depending on cache-size, disk speeds etc).
I am still doing a seq search (this applies to the view question where if
it
is a small result set it used a index search but on a larger return set it
did a seq search) in my view, but with the adjustments to the kernel I get
a
result in 140 secs (MSSQL was 135 secs).
If you want to check whether the index would help, try issuing the
following before running your query:
SET ENABLE_SEQSCAN=FALSE;
This will force PG to use any index it can regardless of whether it
thinks it will help.
This is not production, I am still very worried that I have to do all this
tweeking to use this, MSSQL worked out of the box as it does (not saying
its
great, but I never had to adjust a kernel setting etc). Since we cannot
afford the 70,000 dollars they want to license it I am not implying I can
use MSSQL, but I could look at other DB's like MYSQL, or Firebird, etc.
I'm a little curious what kernel settings you are changing on Windows. I
wasn't aware there was much to be done there.
I'm afraid you do have to change half a dozen settings in
postgresql.conf to match your workload, but PG runs on a much wider
range of machines than MSSQL so it's difficult to come up with a
"reasonable" default. Takes me about 5 minutes when I setup an
installation to make sure the figures are reasonable (rather than the
best they can be).
I have a lot of time now (two weeks) in this conversion and do not wish to
give up, I will see if I can learn what is needed to get the maximum
performance. I have seen much information available and this list has been
a
huge resource. I really appreciate all the help.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
