> Well, it doesn't make big difference. I've performed a quick test

with FB

> 1.5.2 and PG 8.0 on win32. On second run FB is faster than PG,

except the

> GROUP BY clause (where PG slightly wins). But the first run (when

our page

> cache is empty) makes a very big difference: PG is about 20x

faster than FB.

> I don't believe in miracles, so I suspect some in advance database

caching

> on the PG side, but neither of the PG backend processes occupied

more than

> 10MB of RAM whilst the test table was 50M. I think this should be
> investigated a bit further.
>
>
> Dmitry

Thanks Dmitry for taking a look at this and acknownledging that FB
could handle this better.

That goes a long way in my book to be able to admit that another
product does something better and then say "I think this should be
investigated a bit further.".

Again, Thanks