| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sonam Sharma <sonams1209(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: POSTGRES/MYSQL |
| Date: | 2019-03-12 09:05:16 |
| Message-ID: | 8e0779af847f1c557c1ce0e96d5eec01ea71b2ef.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Chris Travers wrote:
> Also MySQL has a query cache that allows the results of very common queries to be much faster.
I have used that feature, and it has bitten me:
https://stackoverflow.com/q/44244482/6464308
I guess only some rather pathological workloads really benefit from that.
> For updates, MySQL avoids a lot of index write overhead. PostgreSQL has more overhead per update.
That is what I meant when I said that PostgreSQL is less suitable for a key-value store.
There is HOT update which can mitigate the problem if the updated columns are not indexed.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2019-03-12 09:34:16 | Re: POSTGRES/MYSQL |
| Previous Message | Chris Travers | 2019-03-12 08:53:23 | Re: POSTGRES/MYSQL |