I suppose comparing postgres running on a single processor laptop to sql server running on a dual processor machine wouldn't help you determine what sql server does better. If it might let me know. Aside from maybe having the planner reorder joins for you I would guess that it is sql servers support for parallelism. Mike On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:34:31 -0500, Tom Lane wrote > "Tomi N/A" <hefest@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > 2006/12/4, Ian Harding <harding.ian@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> Amen. When I migrated from MSSQL to PostgreSQL (4 years ago), I found > >> out exactly how seriously MS SQL coddles you when it comes to its "Oh, > >> I know what you really meant" query planning. I committed some sins > >> MS SQL covered up nicely and PostgreSQL flat out crawled when > >> presented to it. > > > I've seen the exact same behaviour last year with pg 8.1 vs. MS SQL 2k. > > It was an unexpected shock, but it's really not that hard to make > > pgsql run much faster. > > There are simply things which pgsql executes painfully slow if you > > don't write them the way the server expects you to. > > These sorts of reports would be far more helpful if they contained some > specifics. What queries does MSSQL do better than Postgres, exactly? > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match -- Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
