Re: PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc., was Re: PostgreSQL is much

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, Chris Travers <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc., was Re: PostgreSQL is much
Date: 2003-11-29 17:24:22
Message-ID: 200311291224.22600.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general

On Thursday 27 November 2003 04:18, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
<snip explination of postgresql cacheing tables in memory>
>
> Hope this helps. I would be interested in numbers that say postgresql is
> slower than mysql heap tables. (You can force postgresql to load entire
> table by doin select * from table. Of course the table is expected to be
> small enough.. Then compare the results. It will always be slow first
> time..)
>

the difference is that with mysql, nothing pushes the table out of memory; it
always stays in memory. in postgresql, a big query on another tables, or
perhaps a vacuum, or other highly active applications on the same server can
cause the small tables to be pushed out of memory. both approches have
positives and negatives, and in many cases you would probably notice no
differance

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message elein 2003-11-29 17:55:52 Re: howto get postgres articles published (was LAMP pgsql article)
Previous Message Robert Bernier 2003-11-29 11:42:18 howto get postgres articles published (was LAMP pgsql article)

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Eckermann 2003-11-29 17:30:59 Re: Can I get rid of the schemas?
Previous Message Rod K 2003-11-29 17:19:27 Re: Triggers, Stored Procedures, PHP. was: Re: PostgreSQL Advocacy, Thoughts and Comments