| From: | Dimitri <dimitrik(dot)fr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Chris <dmagick(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Date: | 2009-05-06 08:49:32 |
| Message-ID: | 5482c80a0905060149w148e1258xd0638c2fb55537dc@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi Richard,
no, of course it's not based on explain :-)
I've run several tests before and now going in depth to understand if
there is nothing wrong. Due such a single query time difference InnoDB
is doing 2-3 times better TPS level comparing to PostgreSQL..
Rgds,
-Dimitri
On 5/6/09, Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> wrote:
> Dimitri wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> the only problem I see here is it's 2 times slower vs InnoDB
>
> How do you know? This isn't just based on the explain values reported,
> is it?
>
> --
> Richard Huxton
> Archonet Ltd
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2009-05-06 09:02:29 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2009-05-06 08:40:46 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |