| From: | Adam Ruth <adamruth(at)mac(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test? |
| Date: | 2004-02-03 02:20:33 |
| Message-ID: | 8B730E67-55EF-11D8-B13C-000A959D1424@mac.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-performance |
Wow, I didn't know that (didn't get far enough to test any rollback).
That's not a good thing. <facetious>But then again, it's MySQL who
needs rollback anyway?</facetious>
On Feb 2, 2004, at 5:44 PM, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> One more thing that annoyed me. If you started a process, such as a
>> large DDL operation, or heaven forbid, a cartesian join (what? I
>> never do that!).
>
> I believe InnoDB also has O(n) rollback time. eg. if you are rolling
> back 100 million row changes, it takes a long, long time. In
> PostgreSQL rolling back is O(1)...
>
> Chris
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-02-03 03:04:45 | Re: MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test? |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-02-03 01:47:04 | Re: MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-02-03 03:04:45 | Re: MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test? |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-02-03 01:47:04 | Re: MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test? |