In an interview "An interview with Adam Machanic" at http://www.simple-talk.com/sql/sql-server-2005/sql-server,-postgressql-and-fish-curry/ at the bottom of the page is a post by Andrew Clarke that says pgsql is much slower in comparison to ms sql. I've read a fair number of posts recently debunking the usual "mysql is faster than pgsql" drone, but a comparison with ms sql is less often heard. Can someone who has first hand experience with both databases comment? Article is Aug 2006. I don't care if pgsql is somewhat slower than sql server 2005, but I do care if it's a lot slower, particularly running queries with complex joins. Here is the relavant part >>>> PostgreSQL! Although I have a certain fondness for it and very much hope it will eventually succeed, we must be realistic. Species have evolved in the time it takes to execute a decent bit of SQL. It runs sometimes at a tenth of the speed of SQLite. Have a look at some of the public comparative benchmarks. As an exercise, I once created a reasonably simple customer database containing a million customer records along with all the usual NAD data. I installed it on SQL Server and PostgreSQL. (thanks to the EMS tools, bless them). They were both on the same Windows 2000 box. The SQL Server system, on average, took a twentieth of the time to produce results from SQL, and the more joins, the more astonishing the difference. I'd assumed that I'd made some ghastly mistake in the installation of PostgreSQL so I got a PostgreSQL expert to check my installation. No mistake. He said that maybe it would run faster on Linux. I tried that, but failed to be excited. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Speed-of-postgres-compared-to-ms-sql%2C-is-this-article-comment-off--tf2614575.html#a7297298 Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
