In an interview "An interview with Adam Machanic" at
http://www.simple-talk.com/sql/sql-server-2005/sql-server,-postgressql-and-fish-curry/
at the bottom of the page is a post by Andrew Clarke that says pgsql is much
slower in comparison to ms sql. I've read a fair number of posts recently
debunking the usual "mysql is faster than pgsql" drone, but a comparison
with ms sql is less often heard. Can someone who has first hand experience
with both databases comment? Article is Aug 2006.
I don't care if pgsql is somewhat slower than sql server 2005, but I do care
if it's a lot slower, particularly running queries with complex joins.
Here is the relavant part
>>>>
PostgreSQL! Although I have a certain fondness for it and very much hope it
will eventually succeed, we must be realistic. Species have evolved in the
time it takes to execute a decent bit of SQL. It runs sometimes at a tenth
of the speed of SQLite. Have a look at some of the public comparative
benchmarks.
As an exercise, I once created a reasonably simple customer database
containing a million customer records along with all the usual NAD data. I
installed it on SQL Server and PostgreSQL. (thanks to the EMS tools, bless
them). They were both on the same Windows 2000 box.
The SQL Server system, on average, took a twentieth of the time to produce
results from SQL, and the more joins, the more astonishing the difference.
I'd assumed that I'd made some ghastly mistake in the installation of
PostgreSQL so I got a PostgreSQL expert to check my installation. No
mistake. He said that maybe it would run faster on Linux. I tried that, but
failed to be excited.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Speed-of-postgres-compared-to-ms-sql%2C-is-this-article-comment-off--tf2614575.html#a7297298
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.