Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Juan Pereira <juankarlos(dot)openggd(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data
Date: 2009-03-17 15:06:27
Message-ID: dcc563d10903170806l3da65c87hbf83547acdf0b352@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Juan Pereira
<juankarlos(dot)openggd(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>
>>> You're almost always better off using a single table with a composite
>>> primary key like (truckid, datapointid) or whatever. If you'll be doing
>>> lots of queries that focus on individual vehicles and expect performance
>>> issues then you could partition the table by truckid, so you actually do
>>> land up with one table per truck, but transparently accessible via table
>>> inheritance so you can still query them all together.
>
> Quite interesting!
>
> The main reason why we thought using a table per truck was because
> concurrent load: if there are 100 trucks trying to write in the same table,
> maybe the performance is worse than having 100 tables, due to the fact that
> the table is blocked for other queries while the writing process is running,
> isn't it?

Using MySQL has a tendency to teach people bad habits, and this
assumption would be one of them. :)

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2009-03-17 15:11:30 Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2009-03-17 14:30:23 Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Raymond O'Donnell 2009-03-17 15:10:44 Re: COPY command question
Previous Message Ivano Luberti 2009-03-17 15:04:16 Re: COPY command question