Re: Large databases, performance
От | Michael Paesold |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Large databases, performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 01c601c26bc4$73d5f900$4201a8c0@beeblebrox обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Large databases, performance ("Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 06:51:05PM +0200, Hans-J?rgen Sch?nig wrote: > > > In the case of concurrent transactions MySQL does not do as well due to > > very bad locking behavious. PostgreSQL is far better because it does row > > level locking instead of table locking. > > It is my understanding that MySQL no longer does this on InnoDB > tables. Whether various bag-on-the-side table types are a good thing > I will leave to others; but there's no reason to go 'round making > claims about old versions of MySQL any more than there is a reason to > continue to talk about PostgreSQL not being crash safe. MySQL has > moved along nearly as quickly as PostgreSQL. Locking and transactions is not fine in MySQL (with InnoDB) though. I tried to do selects on a table I was concurrently inserting to. In a single thread I was constantly inserting 1000 rows per transaction. While inserting I did some random selects on the same table. It often happend that the insert transactions were aborted due to dead lock problems. There I see the problem with locking reads. I like PostgreSQL's MVCC! Regards, Michael Paesold
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: