| From: | "Mitch Vincent" <mitch(at)huntsvilleal(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why Not MySQL? |
| Date: | 2000-05-04 22:41:53 |
| Message-ID: | 002101bfb619$f33a8700$0300000a@doot.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Well, drat. Looks like 7.0's query plan is slower :-(. There's
> something fishy about the numbers for 6.5.3 though --- how could it have
> done that query with zero blocks read? Are you sure you are comparing
> apples to apples here? I wonder whether the 6.5 system already had the
> tables cached in kernel disk buffers while 7.0 was working from a
> standing start and had to physically go to the disk.
This is very possible as the 6.5.3 PG is running on the production server
which is constantly being queried.
>Also, did both
> versions have the same -B and -S settings?
I didn't specify any -B or -S settings so both are using their respective
defaults..
Thanks!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-04 22:46:54 | Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-04 22:32:26 | small bug in psql's tab completion |