Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Mikheev, Vadim:
> > Also, does MySQL read table itself if it can get all required
> > columns from index?! I mean - did your query really read *both*
> > index and *table*?
> Yes, and yes.
> Note that this "benchmark" was much too quick-and-dirty and didn't
> really say anything conclusive... we'll have to wait a bit for that.
> Matthias Urlichs | noris network GmbH | smurf(at)noris(dot)de | ICQ: 20193661
> The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de/
Although I am a PostgreSQL zealot, I have to admit that many
PostgreSQL users have hidden behind the use of transactions in
justifying the sometimes 2 - 3 times slower execution speeds in
DML statements vs. MySQL. As Vadim points out in his comparison
of COPY vs. INSERT, something is *wrong* with the time it takes
for PostgreSQL to parse, plan, rewrite, and optimize. Now that
MySQL has transactions through Berkley DB, I think its going to
be harder to justify the pre-executor execution times.
Just my two cents,
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andreas Zeugswetter||Date: 2000-05-26 06:20:50|
|Subject: Re: Any reason to use pg_dumpall on an idle database|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-05-26 04:35:14|
|Subject: Re: aliases break my query |