Postgresql's table & index compared to that of MySQL

From: Andy <angelflow(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Postgresql's table & index compared to that of MySQL
Date: 2010-08-16 22:59:02
Message-ID: 684122.19505.qm@web111307.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

For the same data set, with mostly text data, how does the data (table + index) size of Postgresql compared to that of MySQL?

In this presentation, the largest blog site in Japan talked about their migration from Postgresql to MySQL. One of their reasons for moving away from Postgresql was that data size in Postgresql was too large (p. 12 & p. 41). Specifically they talked about index being 40% of total data size:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2569473/Migrating-from-PostgreSQL-to-MySQL-at-Cocolog-Japans-Largest-Blog-Community

Are there any reasons why table & index sizes of Postgresql should be larger than MySQL? Postgresql uses MVCC while InnoDB does not use "full" MVCC, so perhaps that's a factor there.

Does anyone have any actual experience about how the data sizes of Postgresql & MySQL compare to each other?

The company in the presentation used Postgresql 8.1. Has there been any significant changes in data size between 8.1 and 8.4/9.0?

Thanks.

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-08-16 23:47:54 Re: Postgresql's table & index compared to that of MySQL
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-08-16 20:18:06 Re: How to refer to computed columns from other computed columns?