Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?

[Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.