X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD7963A5C51 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:20:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38342-07 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:20:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from stark.xeocode.com (gsstark.mtl.istop.com [66.11.160.162]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E06F63A5B3E for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:20:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=stark.xeocode.com) by stark.xeocode.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ctpty-0007DI-00; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:20:18 -0500 To: "Joel Fradkin" Cc: , Subject: Re: same question little different test MSSQL vrs Postgres References: <000401c503aa$f8ee5620$797ba8c0@jfradkin> In-Reply-To: <000401c503aa$f8ee5620$797ba8c0@jfradkin> From: Greg Stark Organization: The Emacs Conspiracy; member since 1992 Date: 26 Jan 2005 11:20:18 -0500 Message-ID: <873bwo17st.fsf@stark.xeocode.com> Lines: 17 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.057 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200501/262 X-Sequence-Number: 20050 "Joel Fradkin" writes: > QUERY PLAN > "Seq Scan on tblcase (cost=0.00..30066.21 rows=37401 width=996) (actual > time=0.344..962.260 rows=22636 loops=1)" > " Filter: ((clientnum)::text = 'SAKS'::text)" > "Total runtime: 1034.434 ms" Well that says it only took 1s. So it seems this is highly dependent on whether the data is in cache. Perhaps it was in cache on MSSQL when you profiled it there and not on postgres? You could put an index on clientnum, but if the data is usually in cache like this it might not even be necessary. -- greg