Alvaro Herrera escribió: > No amount of tinkering is going to change the fact that a seqscan is the > fastest way to execute these queries. Even if you got it to be all in > memory, it would still be much slower than the other systems which, I > gather, are using columnar storage and thus are perfectly suited to this > problem (unlike Postgres). The talk about "compression ratios" caught > me by surprise until I realized it was columnar stuff. There's no way > you can get such high ratios on a regular, row-oriented storage.
FWIW if you want a fair comparison, get InnoDB numbers. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
