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