| From: | PFC <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Amit V Shah" <ashah(at)tagaudit(dot)com>, "'Jeffrey Tenny'" <jeffrey(dot)tenny(at)comcast(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Need help to decide Mysql vs Postgres |
| Date: | 2005-06-06 16:41:13 |
| Message-ID: | op.sryjazt2th1vuj@localhost |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> postgres -> returns results in 2.8 seconds
What kind of plan does it do ? seq scan on the big tables and hash join
on the small tables ?
> mysql -> takes around 16 seconds !!!! (This is with myisam ... with
> innodb it takes 220 seconds)
I'm not surprised at all.
Try the same Join query but with a indexed where + order by / limit on
the big table and you should get even worse for MySQL.
I found 3 tables in a join was the maximum the MySQL planner was able to
cope with before blowing up just like you experienced.
> I am all for postgres at this point, however just want to know why I am
> getting opposite results !!! Both DBs are on the same machine
Why do you say "opposite results" ?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit V Shah | 2005-06-06 16:45:51 | Re: Need help to decide Mysql vs Postgres |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2005-06-06 16:22:29 | Re: Need help to decide Mysql vs Postgres |