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 3C27D9DD44C for ; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:38:57 -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 30401-08 for ; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:38:58 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 203CB9DCD40 for ; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:38:54 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBBKcsCd018667; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:38:54 -0500 (EST) To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Stenslet?= cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Should Oracle outperform PostgreSQL on a complex multidimensional query? In-reply-to: <43D5D5C1F10C384B9AB4AE34A0510EC12B2B66@e1.exie.no> References: <43D5D5C1F10C384B9AB4AE34A0510EC12B2B66@e1.exie.no> Comments: In-reply-to =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Stenslet?= message dated "Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:26:55 +0100" Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:38:54 -0500 Message-ID: <18666.1134333534@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003] X-Spam-Score: 0.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/283 X-Sequence-Number: 16104 =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Stenslet?= writes: > I have established similar conditions for the query in PostgreSQL, and = > it runs in about 30 seconds. Again the CPU utilization is high with no = > noticable I/O. The query plan is of course very different from that of = > Oracle, since PostgreSQL lacks the bitmap index merge operation. Perhaps you should be trying this on PG 8.1? In any case, without specific details of your schema or a look at EXPLAIN ANALYZE results, it's unlikely that anyone is going to have any useful comments for you. regards, tom lane