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

Has this been written up yet? Hopefully for 1.5.2 and 2.0.