Re: system usage stats (Was: Re: Why Not MySQL? )

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Cc: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Mitch Vincent <mitch(at)huntsvilleal(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: system usage stats (Was: Re: Why Not MySQL? )
Date: 2000-05-04 15:06:20
Message-ID: 23832.957452780@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> writes:
> So, what's the bottom line? The numbers don't tell us much,
> though I still think Tom's right that the PG7.0 one is really
> slower. You just can't say if how MUCH slower.

Actually I was a lot more concerned about disk performance than CPU
speed. I notice no one's said anything about the relative speed
of Mitch's two different disk setups ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message The Hermit Hacker 2000-05-04 16:00:17 Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-05-04 15:02:14 Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?