From: | Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)spnz(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
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 23:44:04 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.00.1010301943240.31170@sergyar |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> 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?
Bleh, I meant columns.
100 rows is nothing.
> 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
>
Brian
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2010-10-31 05:42:57 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Tasks for the Google Code-In |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2010-10-30 21:03:22 | Re: Probable faq: need some benchmarks of pgsql vr.s mysql |