On 10/29/2010 11:37 PM, Brian Hurt wrote:
>
> For the record, the table we're having trouble inserting into is ~100
> rows with ~50 indexes on it. E.F Codd is spinning in his grave. The
> reason they went with this design (instead of one that has two tables,
> each with 3-6 columns, and about that many indexes) is that "joins are
> slow". Which they may be on Mysql, I don't know. But this is
> (unfortunately) a different battle.

is that really only 100 rows or are you actually talking about columns? 
if the later you will have a very hard time getting reasonable bulk/mass 
loading performance in most databases (and also pg) - a table that wide 
and with a that ridiculous number of indexes is just bound to be slow. 
Now I actually think that the figures you are getting from innodb are 
fairly reasonable...


Stefan

In response to

• Re: Probable faq: need some benchmarks of pgsql vr.s mysql at 2010-10-29 21:37:19 from Brian Hurt

Responses

• Re: Probable faq: need some benchmarks of pgsql vr.s mysql at 2010-10-30 16:20:30 from Joshua D. Drake
• Re: Probable faq: need some benchmarks of pgsql vr.s mysql at 2010-10-30 23:44:04 from Brian Hurt

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:	From: Joshua D. Drake	Date: 2010-10-30 16:20:30
	Subject: Re: Probable faq: need some benchmarks of pgsql vr.s mysql
Previous:	From: Richard Broersma	Date: 2010-10-29 23:03:59
	Subject: Call For Talks: PGDay LA @ SCALE 9X