Re: MSSQL versus Postgres timing

"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..16024.395rows=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