From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "'Matthias Urlichs'" <smurf(at)noris(dot)de> |
Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | AW: Berkeley DB... |
Date: | 2000-05-25 15:42:50 |
Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C604AF7DA4@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The select:
> 0.75 MySQL-MyISAM
> 0.77 MySQL-BDB
> 2.43 PostgreSQL
>
> I'll do a "real" test once the BDB support in MySQL is stable
> enough to run the MySQL benchmark suite.
It is the sequential scan timings that we would be very interested in.
create table foo (a int not null,b char(100));
create index foo_a on foo(a);
for(i=0; i<10000; i++) {
insert into foo(a,b) values( `((i*3467)%10000)` , 'fusli');
}
time this:
select count(*) from foo where b<>'not there';
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-25 15:46:31 | Re: gram.y PROBLEM with UNDER |
Previous Message | Ed Loehr | 2000-05-25 15:40:19 | parser oddity (t.count) |