Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Configuration Advice

From: "Adam Rich" <adam(dot)r(at)sbcglobal(dot)net>
To: "'Bricklen Anderson'" <banderson(at)presinet(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Configuration Advice
Date: 2007-01-17 23:37:48
Message-ID: 090501c73a90$7f154330$6400a8c0@dualcore (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Sorry if this came off sounding trollish....  All databases have their
strengths & weaknesses, and I feel the responsible thing to do is
exploit
those strengths where possible, rather than expend significant time and
effort coaxing one database to do something it wasn't designed to.
There's just no such thing as "one size fits all".

I have professional experience with MS-SQL, Oracle, MySQL, and Postgres.
and the scenario described sounds more ideal for MySQL & MyISAM than 
anything else:

1) No concerns for data loss (turning fsync & full_page_writes off)
since the data can be reloaded

2) No need for MVCC or transactions, since the database is read-only

3) No worries about lock contention

4) Complex queries that might take advantage of the MySQL "Query Cache"
since the base data never changes

5) Queries that might obtain data directly from indexes without having
to touch tables (again, no need for MVCC)

If loading in the base data and creating the summary table is taking 
a lot of time, using MySQL with MyISAM tables (and binary logging
disabled) should provide significant time savings, and it doesn't 
sound like there's any concerns for the downsides.  

Yes, postgresql holds an edge over MySQL for heavy OLTP applications,
I use it for that and I love it.  But for the scenario the original 
poster is asking about, MySQL/MyISAM is ideal.  




-----Original Message-----
From: Bricklen Anderson [mailto:banderson(at)presinet(dot)com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:29 PM
To: Adam Rich
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Configuration Advice


Adam Rich wrote:
> Doesn't sound like you want postgres at all.... Try mysql.

Could you explain your reason for suggesting mysql? I'm simply curious 
why you would offer that as a solution.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Dave CramerDate: 2007-01-17 23:43:44
Subject: Re: Configuration Advice
Previous:From: SteveDate: 2007-01-17 23:33:50
Subject: Re: Configuration Advice

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group