X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64293528AD
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 24 May 2005 03:18:44 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 37734-07
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 24 May 2005 06:18:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from houston.familyhealth.com.au (houston.au.fhnetwork.com
	[203.22.197.21])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FBB152875
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 24 May 2005 03:18:30 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from houston.familyhealth.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by houston.familyhealth.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id B980A24FE0;
	Tue, 24 May 2005 14:18:28 +0800 (WST)
Received: from [192.168.0.40] (work-40.internal [192.168.0.40])
	by houston.familyhealth.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9580224FCE;
	Tue, 24 May 2005 14:18:28 +0800 (WST)
Message-ID: <4292C73C.60006@familyhealth.com.au>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 14:18:36 +0800
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mark durrant <markd89@yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Select performance vs. mssql
References: <20050524054715.3988.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050524054715.3988.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.065 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200505/354
X-Sequence-Number: 12518


> select count(*) from mtable where day='Mon'
> 
> Results:
> 
> 1. P3 600 512MB RAM MSSQL. It takes about 4-5 secs to
> run. If I run a few queries and everything is cached,
> it is sometimes  just 1 second.
> 
> 2. Athlon 1.3 Ghz 1GB RAM. PostgreSQL takes 7 seconds.
> I have played with the buffers setting and currently
> have it at 7500. At 20000 it took over 20 seconds to
> run.
> 
> 5 seconds vs 7 isn't that big of a deal, but 1 second
> vs 7 seconds is. Also, the slower performance is with
> much lesser hardware.

Post the result of this for us:

explain analyze select count(*) from mtable where day='Mon';

On both machines.

Chris