On 15/02/06, Jay Greenfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been vacuuming between each test run.Not vacuuming results in times all the way up to 121 minutes. For a directcomparison with Access, the vacuuming time with Postgres should really beincluded as this is not required with Access.
Hmm bu
"Jay Greenfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I did a run with checkpoint_segments @ 30 (from 3 in 4.35 min run) and
> posted a time of 6.78 minutes. Any idea why this would increase the time?
The first time through might take longer while the machine creates empty
xlog segment files (though I'd
hanks,
Jay.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Trout
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:23 AM
To: Jay Greenfield
Cc: 'Tom Lane'; 'Stephen Frost'; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres sl
On Feb 14, 2006, at 3:56 PM, Jay Greenfield wrote:
How do you get 4,000+ lines of explain analyze for one update
query in a
database with only one table? Something a bit fishy there.
Perhaps you
mean explain verbose, though I don't really see how that'd be so long
either, but it'd be clos
eld
Cc: 'Stephen Frost'; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres slower than MS ACCESS
"Jay Greenfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The table is 1.2 million rows X 246 columns. The only index is the
primary
> key. I will try to rem
"Jay Greenfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The table is 1.2 million rows X 246 columns. The only index is the primary
> key. I will try to remove that index to see if that improves performance at
> all.
Hmm, the large number of columns might have something to do with it ...
what datatypes ar
nal Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:43 PM
To: Stephen Frost
Cc: Jay Greenfield; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres slower than MS ACCESS
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While it's true
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > While it's true that Access almost certainly takes some shortcuts, 24
> > minutes for an update across 1.2 millon rows seems an awefully long time
> > for Postgres.
>
> I did some experiments along this line with
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While it's true that Access almost certainly takes some shortcuts, 24
> minutes for an update across 1.2 millon rows seems an awefully long time
> for Postgres.
I did some experiments along this line with a trivial table (2 integer
columns) of 1.28M rows
* Jay Greenfield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Database has one table with 1.2 million rows
> Query:
>
> UPDATE ntdn SET gha=area/1
>
> I could post the EXPLAIN ANALYZE results but its 4,000+ lines long
How do you get 4,000+ lines of explain analyze for one update query in a
database with onl
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 10:17, Jay Greenfield wrote:
> Is it possible to configure Postgres to behave like Access - a single user
> and use as much of the recourses as required?
No. If you want something akin to that, try SQL Lite. it's not as
featureful as PostgreSQL, but it's closer to it than
Greenfield
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres slower than MS ACCESS
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 09:51, Jay Greenfield wrote:
> I am running some simple queries to benchmark Postgres 8.1 against MS
> Access and Postgres is 2 to 3 times slower that Access.
A BUNCH OF
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 09:51, Jay Greenfield wrote:
> I am running some simple queries to benchmark Postgres 8.1 against MS
> Access and Postgres is 2 to 3 times slower that Access.
A BUNCH OF STUFF SNIPPED
> Why does Access run so much faster? How can I get Postgres to run as
> fast as Access?
I am running some simple queries to benchmark
Postgres 8.1 against MS Access and Postgres is 2 to 3 times slower that
Access.
Hardware:
Dell Optiplex GX280
P4 3.20 GHz
3GB RAM
Windows XP SP1
Database has one table with 1.2 million rows
Query:
UPDATE ntdn SET gha=area/1000
14 matches
Mail list logo
