Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
От | Scott Marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Thousands of tables versus on table? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4666E5A0.40604@g2switchworks.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Thousands of tables versus on table? (Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Craig James wrote: > > Oracle is simply not better than Postgres in this regard. As far as I > know, there is only one specific situation (discussed frequently here) > where Oracle is faster: the count(), min() and max() functions, and I > know significant progress has been made since I started using > Postgres. I have not found any other query where Oracle is > significantly better, and I've found several where Postgres is the > clear winner. In my testing between a commercial database that cannot be named and postgresql, I found max() / min() to be basically the same, even with where clauses and joins happening. count(*), OTOH, is a still a clear winner for the big commercial database. With smaller sets (1 Million or so) both dbs are in the same ballpark. With 30+million rows, count(*) took 2 minutes on pgsql and 4 seconds on the big database. OTOH, there are some things, like importing data, which are MUCH faster in pgsql than in the big database.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: