On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 15:36, novnov wrote: > OK, thanks everyone, I gather from the responses that postgres performance > won't be an issue for me then. If MS SQL Server and Postgres are in the same > ballpark performance-wise, which seems to be the upshot of your comments, no > problem. I'd only have worried if there was something like the major > difference between the two with more complicated queries. I am puzzled by > the commentor's post to the article, it could be FUD of course but didn't > particularly sound like the commentor was anti pgsql. I will say this. Most other databases are more forgiving of bad queries. Make a bad query and postgresql is more likely to punish you for it. But I've seen production oracle servers make pretty bad query plans too because someone used a non-selective sub-select that the planner couldn't work around. I love postgresql, and I think the query planner has made leaps and bounds since I started working with it. But it is not designed to run bad sql quickly.
