From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)spnz(dot)org> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Probable faq: need some benchmarks of pgsql vr.s mysql |
Date: | 2010-10-30 13:57:39 |
Message-ID: | 4CCC2453.70107@kaltenbrunner.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 10/29/2010 11:37 PM, Brian Hurt wrote:
>
> For the record, the table we're having trouble inserting into is ~100
> rows with ~50 indexes on it. E.F Codd is spinning in his grave. The
> reason they went with this design (instead of one that has two tables,
> each with 3-6 columns, and about that many indexes) is that "joins are
> slow". Which they may be on Mysql, I don't know. But this is
> (unfortunately) a different battle.
is that really only 100 rows or are you actually talking about columns?
if the later you will have a very hard time getting reasonable bulk/mass
loading performance in most databases (and also pg) - a table that wide
and with a that ridiculous number of indexes is just bound to be slow.
Now I actually think that the figures you are getting from innodb are
fairly reasonable...
Stefan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-10-30 16:20:30 | Re: Probable faq: need some benchmarks of pgsql vr.s mysql |
Previous Message | Richard Broersma | 2010-10-29 23:03:59 | Call For Talks: PGDay LA @ SCALE 9X |