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 but
,
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 slower than MS ACCESS
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 not
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?
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 STUFF
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
* 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 only one
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. I
* 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 a trivial
: 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 that Access almost certainly takes some shortcuts, 24
minutes for an update across
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 are the
: '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 remove that index to see if that improves performance
12 matches
Mail list logo
