X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477C69DC83F for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:04:52 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54716-09 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:04:49 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from exchange.g2switchworks.com (mail.g2switchworks.com [63.87.162.25]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83BA9DC823 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:04:48 -0400 (AST) Received: from 10.10.1.37 ([10.10.1.37]) by exchange.g2switchworks.com ([10.10.1.2]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:04:45 +0000 Received: from state.g2switchworks.com by mail.g2switchworks.com; 14 Feb 2006 10:04:45 -0600 Subject: Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS From: Scott Marlowe To: Jay Greenfield Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <200602141551.k1EFpN6F020512@timberline.ca> References: <200602141551.k1EFpN6F020512@timberline.ca> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1139933084.22740.177.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:04:45 -0600 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.168 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] X-Spam-Score: 0.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/158 X-Sequence-Number: 17144 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? Because Access is not a multi-user database management system designed to handle anywhere from a couple to several thousand users at the same time? PostgreSQL can do this update while still allowing users to access the data in the database, and can handle updates to the same table at the same time, as long as they aren't hitting the same rows. They're two entirely different beasts. One is good at batch processing moderate amounts of data for one user at a time. The other is good for real time processing of very large amounts of data for a fairly large number of users while running at an acceptable, if slower speed.