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 B4BF49DC9DC for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:02:33 -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 62588-07 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:02:34 -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 C21809DC9AC for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:02:30 -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 k1EL2WSs022609; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:02:32 -0500 (EST) To: "Jay Greenfield" cc: "'Stephen Frost'" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS In-reply-to: <200602142056.k1EKuIiO002595@timberline.ca> References: <200602142056.k1EKuIiO002595@timberline.ca> Comments: In-reply-to "Jay Greenfield" message dated "Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:56:18 -0800" Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:02:32 -0500 Message-ID: <22608.1139950952@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.109 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109] X-Spam-Score: 0.109 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/176 X-Sequence-Number: 17162 "Jay Greenfield" 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 columns? regards, tom lane