Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS
- From: Peter Childs <peterachilds(at)gmail(dot)com>
- To: Jay Greenfield <jag(at)timberline(dot)ca>
- Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:32:34 +0000
On 15/02/06, Jay Greenfield <jag(at)timberline(dot)ca> wrote:
Hmm but then you would have to include Access Vacuum too I'll think you will find "Tools -> Database Utils -> Compact Database" preforms a simular purpose and is just as important as I've seen many Access Databases bloat in my time.
Peter Childs
I've been vacuuming between each test run.
Not vacuuming results in times all the way up to 121 minutes. For a direct
comparison with Access, the vacuuming time with Postgres should really be
included as this is not required with Access.
Hmm but then you would have to include Access Vacuum too I'll think you will find "Tools -> Database Utils -> Compact Database" preforms a simular purpose and is just as important as I've seen many Access Databases bloat in my time.
Peter Childs
- References:
- Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS
- From: Jeff Trout
- Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS
- From: Jay Greenfield
- Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS
- Prev by Date: Re: qsort again (was Re: Strange Create Index
- Next by Date: Re: [HACKERS] qsort again
- Previous by thread: Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS
- Next by thread: 0ut of Memory Error during Vacuum Analyze
- Indexes: