Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
От | William Yu |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | bj7tlm$ngt$1@news.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS ("Relaxin" <me@yourhouse.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Relaxin wrote: > I have a table with 102,384 records in it, each record is 934 bytes. > > Using the follow select statement: > SELECT * from <table> > > PG Info: version 7.3.4 under cygwin on Windows 2000 > ODBC: version 7.3.100 > > Machine: 500 Mhz/ 512MB RAM / IDE HDD > > Under PG: Data is returned in 26 secs!! > Under SQL Server: Data is returned in 5 secs. > Under SQLBase: Data is returned in 6 secs. > Under SAPDB: Data is returned in 7 secs. I created a similar table (934 bytes, 102K records) on a slightly faster machine: P3/800 + 512MB RAM + IDE HD. The server OS is Solaris 8 x86 and the version is 7.3.3. On the server (via PSQL client) : 7.5 seconds Using ODBC under VFPW: 10.5 seconds How that translates to what you should see, I'm not sure. Assuming it was just the CPU difference, you should see numbers of roughly 13 seconds. But the documentation says PG under CYGWIN is significantly slower than PG under UNIX so your mileage may vary... Have you changed any of the settings yet in postgresql.conf, specifically the shared_buffers setting?
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: