| From: | PFC <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>, mauro <bertolima(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres performance |
| Date: | 2005-03-02 21:45:38 |
| Message-ID: | opsm05ecu9th1vuj@musicbox |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
> The reason PostgreSQL is slower is because it (and by extension the team
> behind it) cares about your data.
Sure, postgres is (a bit but not much) slower for a simple query like
SELECT * FROM one table WHERE id=some number, and postgres is a lot slower
for UPDATES (although I heard that it's faster than MySQL InnoDB)... but
try a query with a join on few tables, even a simple one, and postgres
will outperform mysql, sometimes by 2x, sometimes 1000 times. I had a case
with a join between 4 tables, two of them having 50k records ; I was only
pulling 6 records... mysql spent half a second and postgres 0.5 ms... hell
!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-03-02 22:06:16 | Re: Postgres performance |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-03-02 20:26:26 | Re: definative way to place secs from epoc into timestamp |