Daniel,
>>Somehow oracle seems to know that a right join is the better way to go.
In fact, PostgreSQL is just doing the same thing: it hashes smaller table
and scans the bigger one.
Could you please clarify how do you consume 25M rows?
It could be the difference of response times comes not from t
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Freitag, 4. Januar 2013 21:41
To: Heikki Linnakangas
Cc: Daniel Westermann; 'pgsql-performance@postgresql.org'
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] FW: performance issue with a 2.5gb joinded table
Heikki Linnakangas wri
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> One difference is that numerics are stored more tightly packed on
> Oracle. Which is particularly good for Oracle as they don't have other
> numeric data types than number. On PostgreSQL, you'll want to use int4
> for ID-fields, where possible. An int4 always takes
-Original Message-
From: Heikki Linnakangas [mailto:hlinnakan...@vmware.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2013 18:02
To: Daniel Westermann
Cc: 'pgsql-performance@postgresql.org'
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] FW: performance issue with a 2.5gb joinded table
On 03.01.2013 15:30, Daniel
On 03.01.2013 15:30, Daniel Westermann wrote:
What additionally makes me wonder is, that the same table in oracle is taking
much less space than in postgresql:
SQL> select sum(bytes) from dba_extents where segment_name = 'TEST1';
SUM(BYTES)
--
1610612736
select pg_relation_size('mgmt
Hi Listers,
we migrated an oracle datawarehouse to postgresql 9.1 ( ppas 9.1.7.12 ) and are
facing massive issues with response times in postgres when compared to the
oracle system. Both database run on the same hardware and storage ( rhel5.8
64bit ).
Oracle memory parameters are:
SGA=1gb
PGA=
