Message-ID: <4666E5A0.40604@g2switchworks.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:49:36 -0500
From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060516)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
References: <C289C6B1.A63%tandrews@soliantconsulting.com>
	<1180980943.31471.322.camel@archimedes>
	<46645DD9.7030805@soliantconsulting.com>
	<877iqjmro5.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
	<46647427.4030103@g2switchworks.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041631490.11737@asgard.lang.hm>
	<466593E5.1010904@g2switchworks.com>
	<87sl96z0wf.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706051325500.24361@asgard.lang.hm>
	<10525.1181080765@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706051507120.24361@asgard.lang.hm>
	<4666DF99.3010809@emolecules.com>
In-Reply-To: <4666DF99.3010809@emolecules.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Craig James wrote:
>
> Oracle is simply not better than Postgres in this regard.  As far as I 
> know, there is only one specific situation (discussed frequently here) 
> where Oracle is faster: the count(), min() and max() functions, and I 
> know significant progress has been made since I started using 
> Postgres.  I have not found any other query where Oracle is 
> significantly better, and I've found several where Postgres is the 
> clear winner. 
In my testing between a commercial database that cannot be named and 
postgresql, I found max() / min() to be basically the same, even with 
where clauses and joins happening.

count(*), OTOH, is a still a clear winner for the big commercial 
database.  With smaller sets (1 Million or so) both dbs are in the same 
ballpark.

With 30+million rows, count(*) took 2 minutes on pgsql and 4 seconds on 
the big database.

OTOH, there are some things, like importing data, which are MUCH faster 
in pgsql than in the big database.