On 3 Oct 2002 at 11:57, Robert Treat wrote:
> NOTE: Setting follow up to the performance list
>
> Funny that the status quo seems to be if you need fast selects on data
> that has few inserts to pick mysql, otherwise if you have a lot of
> inserts and don't need super fast selects go with PostgreSQL; yet your
> data seems to cut directly against this.
Well, couple of things..
The number of inserts aren't few. it's 5000/sec.required in the field Secondly
I don't know really but postgresql seems doing pretty fine in parallel selects.
If we use mysql with transaction support then numbers are really close..
May be it's time to rewrite famous myth that postgresql is slow. When properly
tuned or given enough head room, it's almost as fast as mysql..
> I'm curious, did you happen to run the select tests while also running
> the insert tests? IIRC the older mysql versions have to lock the table
> when doing the insert, so select performance goes in the dumper in that
> scenario, perhaps that's not an issue with 3.23.52?
IMO even if it locks tables that shouldn't affect select performance. It would
be fun to watch when we insert multiple chunks of data and fire queries
concurrently. I would be surprised if mysql starts slowing down..
> It also seems like the vacuum after each insert is unnecessary, unless
> your also deleting/updating data behind it. Perhaps just running an
> ANALYZE on the table would suffice while reducing overhead.
I believe that was vacuum analyze only. But still it takes lot of time. Good
thing is it's not blocking..
Anyway I don't think such frequent vacuums are going to convince planner to
choose index scan over sequential scan. I am sure it's already convinced..
Regards,
Shridhar
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shridhar Daithankar
LIMS CPE Team Member, PSPL.
mailto:shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in
Phone:- +91-20-5678900 Extn.270
Fax :- +91-20-5678901
-----------------------------------------------------------