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

Re: Time to put theory to the test?

From: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: J Sisson <sisson(dot)j(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com>,"pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Time to put theory to the test?
Date: 2011-04-26 17:04:21
Message-ID: 20110426170421.GD23895@aart.is.rice.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 09:58:49AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> J Sisson <sisson(dot)j(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Tip from someone that manages thousands of MySQL servers: Use
> >> InnoDB when using MySQL.
> > 
> > Granted, my knowledge of PostgreSQL (and even MSSQL) far surpasses
> > my knowledge of MySQL, but if InnoDB has such amazing benefits as
> > being crash safe, and even speed increases in some instances, why
> > isn't InnoDB default?
>  
> Because it's not as fast as the unsafe ISAM implementation for most
> benchmarks.
>  
> There is one minor gotcha in InnoDB (unless it's been fixed since
> 2008): the release of locks is not atomic with the persistence of
> the data in the write-ahead log (which makes it S2PL but not SS2PL).
> So it is possible for another connection to see data that won't be
> there after crash recovery. This is justified as an optimization.
> Personally, I would prefer not to see data from other transactions
> until it has actually been successfully committed.
>  
> -Kevin
> 

In addition, their fulltext indexing only works with MyISAM tables.

Ken

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2011-04-26 17:57:04
Subject: Re: Time to put theory to the test?
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2011-04-26 15:54:14
Subject: Re: Time to put theory to the test?

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