On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Suvankar Roy wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> Yes, I have got 2 segments and a master host. So, in a way processing should
> be faster in Greenplum.
>
> Actually this is only a sort of Proof of Concept trial that I am carrying
> out to notice differences between greenplum an
@postgresql.org
Subject
Re: [PERFORM] Performance comparison between Postgres and Greenplum
,--- You/Suvankar (Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:53:41 +0530) *
| I have some 99,000 records in a table (OBSERVATION_ALL) in a Postgres DB
| as well as a Greenplum DB.
|
| The Primary key is a composite one
wrong here.
Regards,
Suvankar Roy
Scott Marlowe
07/15/2009 03:00 PM
To
Suvankar Roy
cc
pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject
Re: [PERFORM] Performance comparison between Postgres and Greenplum
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Suvankar Roy
wrote:
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> Th
: [PERFORM] Performance comparison between Postgres and Greenplum
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Suvankar Roy wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have some 99,000 records in a table (OBSERVATION_ALL) in a Postgres DB
as
> well as a Greenplum DB.
>
> The Primary key is a composite one co
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Suvankar Roy wrote:
Hi Scott,
This is what I have got -
In Greenplum, version PostgreSQL 8.2.13 (Greenplum Database 3.3.0.1 build 4) on
i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
In Postgres, version PostgreSQL 8
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Suvankar Roy wrote:
I believe that execution time in greenplum should be less compared to postgres.
Well, first off you don't even mention which PostgreSQL or Greenplum
version you're comparing, which leaves a lot of variables we can't account
for. Second, you'd need to
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Alex Goncharov
wrote:
> ,--- You/Suvankar (Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:32:12 +0530) *
> | Yes, I have got 2 segments and a master host. So, in a way processing
> | should be faster in Greenplum.
>
> No, it should not: it all depends on your data, SQL statements and
> s
,--- You/Suvankar (Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:32:12 +0530) *
| Yes, I have got 2 segments and a master host. So, in a way processing
| should be faster in Greenplum.
No, it should not: it all depends on your data, SQL statements and
setup.
In my own experiments, with small amounts of stored data, P
,--- You/Suvankar (Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:53:41 +0530) *
| I have some 99,000 records in a table (OBSERVATION_ALL) in a Postgres DB
| as well as a Greenplum DB.
|
| The Primary key is a composite one comprising of 2 columns (so_no,
| serial_no).
|
| The execution of the following query takes 8
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Suvankar Roy wrote:
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> This is what I have got -
> In Greenplum, version PostgreSQL 8.2.13 (Greenplum Database 3.3.0.1 build 4)
> on
> i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
> In Postgres, version PostgreSQL 8.3.7, compiled by Visual C++ buil
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Suvankar Roy wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have some 99,000 records in a table (OBSERVATION_ALL) in a Postgres DB as
> well as a Greenplum DB.
>
> The Primary key is a composite one comprising of 2 columns (so_no,
> serial_no).
>
> The execution of the following query takes
Hi,
I have some 99,000 records in a table (OBSERVATION_ALL) in a Postgres DB
as well as a Greenplum DB.
The Primary key is a composite one comprising of 2 columns (so_no,
serial_no).
The execution of the following query takes 8214.016 ms in Greenplum but
only 729.134 ms in Postgres.
select *
12 matches
Mail list logo
