X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 506839FB3D0 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:11:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09677-08 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:11:32 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.logix-tt.com (mail.logix-tt.com [212.211.145.186]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253889FA268 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:11:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: from kingfisher.intern.logix-tt.com (p549D1EFC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.157.30.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.logix-tt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFFB565943 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:13:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kingfisher.intern.logix-tt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 767401854BDCA for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:11:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <44E440E5.4060304@logix-tt.com> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:11:49 +0200 From: Markus Schaber Organization: Logical Tracking and Tracing International AG, Switzerland User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060713) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: PostgreSQL runs a query much slower than BDE and MySQL References: <44E35A5D.19933.35F376@peter.ssbg.zetnet.co.uk> <44E4430D.15373.6A0C60@peter.ssbg.zetnet.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <44E4430D.15373.6A0C60@peter.ssbg.zetnet.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.175 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200608/278 X-Sequence-Number: 20463 Hi, Peter, Peter Hardman wrote: >> BTW, are you *sure* you are testing PG 8.1? The "Subquery Scan f2" plan >> node looks unnecessary to me, and I'd have expected 8.1 to drop it out. >> 8.0 and before would have left it in the plan though. This doesn't make >> all that much difference performance-wise in itself, but it does make me >> wonder what you are testing. > > Yes, the executables all say version 8.1.3.6044 Would you mind to look at the output of "select version();", too? I ask this because I stumbled over it myself, that I had installed the correct postgresql and psql versions, but accidentally connected to a different database installation due to strange environment and script settings... Thanks, Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org