From: Peter Childs <peterachilds@gmail.com>
To: Jay Greenfield <jag@timberline.ca>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:32:34 +0000
Message-ID: <a2de01dd0602160532y37de192dv@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200602152129.k1FLTpiO008671@timberline.ca>
References: <24B89C42-C597-4571-8BD1-A89073C3C035@torgo.978.org>
<200602152129.k1FLTpiO008671@timberline.ca>
On 15/02/06, Jay Greenfield <jag@timberline.ca> wrote:
>
>
> I've been vacuuming between each test run.
>
> Not vacuuming results in times all the way up to 121 minutes. For a
> direct
> comparison with Access, the vacuuming time with Postgres should really be
> included as this is not required with Access.
Hmm but then you would have to include Access Vacuum too I'll think you will
find "Tools -> Database Utils -> Compact Database" preforms a simular
purpose and is just as important as I've seen many Access Databases bloat in
my time.
Peter Childs
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: peterachilds@gmail.com, jag@timberline.ca
Subject: Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS
In-Reply-To: <a2de01dd0602160532y37de192dv@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox