From: | Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Dip <dds98(at)doc(dot)ic(dot)ac(dot)uk> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgres Internals |
Date: | 2001-06-20 19:12:27 |
Message-ID: | 3B30F59B.4C734D1C@selectacast.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Dip wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Im running some benchmarking tests on mysql, postgres and interbase
> database servers.
>
> does anyone know the reasons why or know where i can find out some
> technical reasons why the postgres database server is particularly good
> in relation to the others or just by itself e.g. use of query
> optimisation or indexing etc. I'm only looking at creates, selects,
> inserts, update and delete statements. I've noticed it is slow at
> inserting data into tables, but especially quick at doing complex
> selects (i.e. containing many joins). Why is this so?
I suspect because on an UPDATE postgres creates a new tuple and lets the
old one become invalid. It does this to keep the old tuple around
because a transaction that started before the update is supposed to see
the old tuple not the old one. Because a new tuple is created it has to
be inserted into all the indicies. If another database just has one
tuple and overwrites it it doesn't have to update the index.
--
Joseph Shraibman
jks(at)selectacast(dot)net
Increase signal to noise ratio. http://www.targabot.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adam Rossi | 2001-06-20 19:39:44 | Red Hat DB announced - why not PostgreSQL? |
Previous Message | Joseph Shraibman | 2001-06-20 19:08:35 | Re: Another JDBC question dates this time... |