On 3 Oct 2002 at 12:26, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 12:17, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > On 3 Oct 2002 at 11:57, Robert Treat wrote:
> > May be it's time to rewrite famous myth that postgresql is slow.
>
> That myth has been dis-proven long ago, it just takes awhile for
> everyone to catch on ;-)
:-)
> Hmm... been awhile since I dug into mysql internals, but IIRC once the
> table was locked, you had to wait for the insert to complete so the
> table would be unlocked and the select could go through. (maybe this is
> a myth that I need to get clued in on)
If that turns out to be true, I guess mysql will nose dive out of window.. May
be time to run a test that's nearer to real world expectation, especially in
terms on concurrency..
I don't think tat will be an issue with mysql with transaction support. The
vanilla one might suffer.. Not the other one.. At least theoretically..
> My thinking was that if your just doing inserts, you need to update the
> statistics but don't need to check on unused tuples.
Any other way of doing that other than vacuum analyze? I thought that was the
only way..
Bye
Shridhar
--
"Even more amazing was the realization that God has Internet access. Iwonder
if He has a full newsfeed?"(By Matt Welsh)