Re: mysql to postgresql, performance questions

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Dave Crooke
Тема Re: mysql to postgresql, performance questions
Дата
Msg-id ca24673e1003220832j51f3592fn586230b5873a991b@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: mysql to postgresql, performance questions  ("Pierre C" <lists@peufeu.com>)
Список pgsql-performance
Absolutely ...

- for fixed size rows with a lot of small updates, Oracle wins. BTW, as of Oracle 9 they're called "UNDO tablesapces"
- for lots of transactions and feely mixing transactions of all sizes, MVCC tables (Postgres) wins
- if you just want a structured filesystem and don't have integrity requirements or a lot of updates, MyISAM wins

For our app, Oracle would be the best, but it isn't strictly necessary so Postgres wins on price ;-)

Cheers
Dave

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Pierre C <lists@peufeu.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:14:51 +0100, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Dave Crooke <dcrooke@gmail.com> wrote:
Note however that Oracle offeres full transactionality and does in place row
updates. There is more than one way to do it.

There's no free lunch.

MVCC : VACUUM
Oracle : Rollback Segments
MyISAM : no concurrency/transactions

It's all about which compromise suits you ;)

В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Matthew Wakeling
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: GiST index performance
Следующее
От: Justin Pitts
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Building multiple indexes concurrently