Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB96133655C for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:50:08 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38346-05 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:50:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from marajade.localdomain (vcs5.camavision.com [63.228.164.252]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62CC813364DE for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:50:00 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.10.84] (unknown [192.168.10.84]) (Authenticated sender: andy) by marajade.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D75B542796; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:49:59 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <4D0BA2CB.3090809@squeakycode.net> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:50:03 -0600 From: Andy Colson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Haas CC: Tom Polak , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows References: <378e24d1e3af88a49fbbb7c4d26f441a@mail.gmail.com> <4CFE7964.80206@squeakycode.net> <4CFE8E59.2010505@squeakycode.net> <20101207201028.GE4028@aart.is.rice.edu> <4CFE97B4.8090708@squeakycode.net> <70e424e558d87f649f149bf2948d73cb@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201012/220 X-Sequence-Number: 41672 On 12/17/2010 11:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Tom Polak > wrote: > other direction to get good performance, too. You're not going to > compare two major database systems across the board and find that one > of them is just twice as fast, across the board. They have different > advantages and disadvantages. When you're using one product, you > naturally do things in a way that works well for that product, and > moving to a different product means starting over. Oh, putting this > in a stored procedure was faster on MS SQL, but it's slower on > PostgreSQL. Using a view here was terrible on MS SQL, but much faster > under PostgreSQL. > Yeah, totally agree with that. Every database has its own personality, and you have to work with it. Its way. Dont expect one bit of code to work great on all the different databases. You need 5 different bits of code, one for each database. In the end, can PG be fast? Yes. Very. But only when you treat is as PG. If you try to use PG as if it were mssql, you wont be a happy camper. -Andy