Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF7531337B90 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:57:14 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05421-05-6 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:57:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from elizabeth.gransy.com (elizabeth.gransy.com [89.187.132.199]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3051337B9B for ; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:56:58 -0400 (AST) Received: from sq.gransy.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elizabeth.gransy.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0900E15E40F7; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 16:56:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from 89.103.152.5 (SquirrelMail authenticated user tv@fuzzy.cz) by sq.gransy.com with HTTP; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 16:56:59 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4CE8E4FC0200002500037C84@gw.wicourts.gov> References: <4CE8E4FC0200002500037C84@gw.wicourts.gov> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 16:56:59 +0100 Subject: Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql From: tv@fuzzy.cz To: "Kevin Grittner" Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_50=0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201011/338 X-Sequence-Number: 41362 > Pavel Stehule wrote: >> 2010/11/21 Humair Mohammed : > >>> shared_buffers = 2 > >> shared_buffers = 2 ??? > > Yeah, if that's not a typo, that's a very serious misconfiguration. I guess that's a typo, as the explain plain in one of the previous posts contains Buffers: shared hit=192 read=4833 for a sequential scan. But I still don't know why is the query so slow :-( regards Tomas