Mladen Gogala <mladen.gogala@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > The number of rows is significantly smaller, but the table contains > rather significant "text" field which consumes quite a bit of TOAST > storage and the sizes are comparable. Postgres read through 27GB in 113 > seconds, less than 2 minutes and oracle took 2 minutes 37 seconds to > read through 35GB. I stand corrected: there is nothing wrong with the > speed of the Postgres sequential scan. Um ... the whole point of TOAST is that the data isn't in-line. So what Postgres was actually reading through was probably quite a lot less than 27Gb. It's probably hard to make a completely apples-to-apples comparison because the two databases are so different, but I don't think this one proves that PG is faster than Oracle. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
