Ok.
So if it is clear that Access is not a database server while postgres
is, speed is not so much a problem.
I mean that you are right.
You should anyway try optimizing your pgsql
configuration (e.g. -S , -B, -F options).
But still many tests will show that
Access is faster in performing some
operations: insert or select, etc.
I tried similar tests months ago
and I had more or less the same
results. You can find
benchmarks between many different
database systems at
http://www.mysql.com/crashme/choose.php
(they compare features and they have
some graphics of performances)
Time ago, in this list, someone said
that you have on one side of the
databases systems the dbm libs: fastest
straight access to data, no concurrency,
no nothing...
At the other side you have pgsql or similar:
sometimes slower access to data, but many
complex features.
I think you should try to understand very
well what use of the database your application
will do.
If you think that you have just few insertions
and update of data and many reads with
select, and no transactions go to
a faster and less complex sql server.
Many sites with similar use of data are
using mysql that is much better (and faster) than
Access, and is still a server system.
Tucows and many other software download sites are
using mysql. Download sites have sporadic (if compared
to other operations, of course) updates and
thousands of reads.
If you need a more complex data management,
if you plan to implement transactions, if you
have many users inserting, updating and
deleting data, and not only reading data most
of times, choose pgsql.
Bye,
Jac
P.S.:
> Ok, once again let me make this clear...
>
> We are not thinking of using access for our dataserver, your right, its
NOT
> a data SERVER. My question simply was, why does a program like access,
which
> is not a data server, outperform pgsql in our comparison??
You want a simple answer?
Because it is simpler and it doesn't have many of the pgsql features...