Before I ask, I don't want to start a war.
Can someone here give me an honest opinion of how PostgresSQL (PG) is better
than Firebird on Windows?
I've just recently started reading the Firebird NG and a poster over there
has brought up some serious issues with Firebird, but they seem to not tak
> Do you know of any RDBMS that actually will execute a single query on
> multiple processors?
SQL Server does in a sense. It can split a query onto multiple threads
(which could possible use multiple processors) and then brings the results
from the threads into one and then sends the results to
It is forward only in the ODBC driver.
"Neil Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 14:18, Relaxin wrote:
> > Expect that the Declare/Fetch only creates a forwardonly cursor, you can
go
> > backwards thru the
Expect that the Declare/Fetch only creates a forwardonly cursor, you can go
backwards thru the result set.
""Patrick Hatcher"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Relaxin,
> I can't remember during this thread if you said you we
> Is there a reason you can't use cursors (explicitely, or via ODBC if it
> provides some glue on top of them) to keep the result set on the server?
>
> http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/sql-declare.html
> http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/sql-fetch.html
I can only us
issues were handled.
Thanks
"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, "Relaxin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> Have you changed any of the settings yet in pos
I reset the shared_buffers to 1000 from 128, but it made no difference.
""scott.marlowe"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Relaxin wrote:
>
> > I have a table with 102,384 records in it, each record is 934
>
> Have you changed any of the settings yet in postgresql.conf,
> specifically the shared_buffers setting?
>
fsync = false
tcpip_socket = true
shared_buffers = 128
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PR
I had these same issues with the PeerDirect version also.
"Hannu Krosing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Relaxin kirjutas N, 04.09.2003 kell 17:35:
> > So after you did that, where able to position to ANY record within the
> > resultse
The table has been Vacuumed and seq_scan is turned on.
"Jean-Luc Lachance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You forgot that the original poster's query was:
> SELECT * from
>
> This should require a simple table scan. NO need for stats.
> Either the table has not b
r.
"Hannu Krosing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Relaxin kirjutas N, 04.09.2003 kell 03:28:
> > I have a table with 102,384 records in it, each record is 934 bytes.
>
> I created a test database on my Linux (RH9) laptop with 30GB/
All rows are required.
""Shridhar Daithankar"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 4 Sep 2003 at 0:48, Relaxin wrote:
> > All of the databases that I tested the query against gave me immediate
> > access to ANY row of the
> Can you tell us what you were *actually* doing? Somehow it sounds as
> though the other databases were throwing away the data whereas
> PostgreSQL was returning it all "kawhump!" in one batch.
All of the databases that I tested the query against gave me immediate
access to ANY row of the result
All queries were ran on the SERVER for all of the databases I tested.
This is all resulting data for all of the databases that I tested.
"Rod Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don
Yes I Analyze also, but there was no need to because it was a fresh brand
new database.
"Rudi Starcevic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi,
>
>
> >And yes I did a vacuum.
> >
>
> Did you 'Analyze' too ?
>
> Cheers
> Rudi.
>
>
> ---(end of broa
I have a table with 102,384 records in it, each record is 934 bytes.
Using the follow select statement:
SELECT * from
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: D
16 matches
Mail list logo
