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 A4E6B9DC823 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:51:26 -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 52202-05 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:51:30 -0400 (AST) Received: from svr4.postgresql.org (svr4.postgresql.org [66.98.251.159]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78AAE9DC854 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:51:23 -0400 (AST) Received: from timberline.ca (unknown [66.244.194.163]) by svr4.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68D65AF09F for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:51:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from tfic21 ([172.16.10.21]) by timberline.ca (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k1EFpN6F020512 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:51:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200602141551.k1EFpN6F020512@timberline.ca> From: "Jay Greenfield" To: Subject: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:51:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0056_01C6313B.737644C0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: AcYxffGUGtP2JAusQ8OsAeSbQ5+cJg== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/156 X-Sequence-Number: 17142 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C6313B.737644C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/10000 I could post the EXPLAIN ANALYZE results but its 4,000+ lines long I've run various tests on a number of Postgres parameters; none of which have come close to Access' time of 5.00 min. Postgres times range between 24 min and 121 min. Some of the Postgres variables and ranges I've tested. work_mem: 1,000 to 2,000,000 temp_buffers: 1,000 to 10,000 shared_buffers: 1,000 to 64,000 sort_mem: 1,024,000 fsync on / off Why does Access run so much faster? How can I get Postgres to run as fast as Access? Thanks, Jay ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C6313B.737644C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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=3Darea/10000

 

I could post the EXPLAIN ANALYZE results but = its 4,000+ lines long

 

I’ve run various tests on a number of = Postgres parameters; none of which have come close to Access’ time of 5.00 = min.  Postgres times range between 24 min and 121 min.

 

Some of the Postgres variables and ranges = I’ve tested.

 

work_mem:  1,000 to = 2,000,000

temp_buffers:  1,000 to = 10,000

shared_buffers:  1,000 to = 64,000

sort_mem:  = 1,024,000

fsync on / off

 

Why does Access run so much faster?  How = can I get Postgres to run as fast as Access?

 

Thanks,

 

Jay

 

 

 

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C6313B.737644C0--