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

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, Chris Travers <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc., was Re: PostgreSQL is much
Date: 2003-11-29 20:04:50
Message-ID: 20031129200450.GD16671@dcc.uchile.cl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general

On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 12:24:22PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:

> [MySQL's heap tables]

> 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

If this is a small heavily used table, 7.5 with the new ARC buffer
management policy should do much better. Even better, the table does
not actually need to be small: the heavily used portion will stay in
memory where it can be very fast, and the rest will be just wait its
turn on disk.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Coge la flor que hoy nace alegre, ufana. ¿Quién sabe si nacera otra mañana?"

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Randolf Richardson 2003-11-29 21:14:34 Re: PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc., was Re: PostgreSQL is much
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2003-11-29 18:53:36 Re: Mozilla SQL project

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2003-11-29 20:05:39 Re: ip of the user doing an insert
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-11-29 19:28:59 Re: Misplaced modifier in Postgresql license