|From:||Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>|
|To:||Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)spnz(dot)org>|
|Cc:||Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: Probable faq: need some benchmarks of pgsql vr.s mysql|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
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
|Next Message||Joshua D. Drake||2010-10-30 16:20:30||Re: Probable faq: need some benchmarks of pgsql vr.s mysql|
|Previous Message||Richard Broersma||2010-10-29 23:03:59||Call For Talks: PGDay LA @ SCALE 9X|