From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Joel Fradkin <jfradkin@wazagua.com>
Cc: 'Michael Fuhr' <mike@fuhr.org>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: MSSQL versus Postgres timing
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:53:23 -0500
Message-ID: <19308.1107294803@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000101c50893$e25da5d0$797ba8c0@jfradkin>
References: <000101c50893$e25da5d0$797ba8c0@jfradkin>
"Joel Fradkin" <jfradkin@wazagua.com> writes:
> " -> Sort (cost=38119.24..38333.26 rows=85611 width=52) (actual time=20667.645..21031.627 rows=99139 loops=1)"
> " Sort Key: (a.clientnum)::text, a.jobtitleid"
> " -> Seq Scan on tblassociate a (cost=0.00..31105.34 rows=85611 width=52) (actual time=14.768..16024.395 rows=99139 loops=1)"
> " Filter: ((clientnum)::text = 'SAKS'::text)"
The sort steps seem slower than they ought to be. I suspect you ought
to raise sort_mem ... try 10MB instead of 1MB. Also, if you are running
in a locale other than C and don't have a good reason for doing so, it
would be worth trying C locale instead.
The results with enable_seqscan off also suggest that random_page_cost
may be too high for your environment.
BTW, the schema you posted does not match these plans --- there are
indexes referenced in the plans that do not appear in the schema.
regards, tom lane
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jfradkin@wazagua.com, mike@fuhr.org
Subject: Re: MSSQL versus Postgres timing
In-Reply-To: <19308.1107294803@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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