| From: | "Leeuw van der, Tim" <tim(dot)leeuwvander(at)nl(dot)unisys(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | <mkl(at)webde-ag(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Performance List" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres -- |
| Date: | 2004-09-15 06:51:00 |
| Message-ID: | BF88DF69D9E2884B9BE5160DB2B97A85010D6D63@nlshl-exch1.eu.uis.unisys.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi,
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Michael Kleiser
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 4:23 PM
To: Leeuw van der, Tim
Cc: Steinar H. Gunderson; PostgreSQL Performance List
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres --
> What MySQl-table-type did you use?
> Was it "MyISAM" which don't supports transactions ?
> Yes I read about that bulk-inserts with this table-type are very fast.
> In Data Warehouse one often don't need transactions.
Although totally beyond the scope of this thread, we used InnoDB tables with MySQL because of the transaction-support.
regards,
--Tim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | simon | 2004-09-15 09:10:01 | Re: Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres -- |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2004-09-15 06:15:08 | Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres -- |