From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
Cc: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, Chris Travers <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc., was Re: PostgreSQL is much |
Date: | 2003-11-29 20:04:50 |
Message-ID: | 20031129200450.GD16671@dcc.uchile.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general |
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 12:24:22PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> [MySQL's heap tables]
> the difference is that with mysql, nothing pushes the table out of memory; it
> always stays in memory. in postgresql, a big query on another tables, or
> perhaps a vacuum, or other highly active applications on the same server can
> cause the small tables to be pushed out of memory. both approches have
> positives and negatives, and in many cases you would probably notice no
> differance
If this is a small heavily used table, 7.5 with the new ARC buffer
management policy should do much better. Even better, the table does
not actually need to be small: the heavily used portion will stay in
memory where it can be very fast, and the rest will be just wait its
turn on disk.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Coge la flor que hoy nace alegre, ufana. ¿Quién sabe si nacera otra mañana?"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Randolf Richardson | 2003-11-29 21:14:34 | Re: PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc., was Re: PostgreSQL is much |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2003-11-29 18:53:36 | Re: Mozilla SQL project |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2003-11-29 20:05:39 | Re: ip of the user doing an insert |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-29 19:28:59 | Re: Misplaced modifier in Postgresql license |