From: | PFC <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Mauro Bertoli" <bertolima(at)yahoo(dot)it>, "Richard Huxton" <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgres performance |
Date: | 2005-03-04 23:20:54 |
Message-ID: | opsm4y44r8th1vuj@musicbox |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
> I don't require transaction because the query aren't
> complex and update a single tuple (in SELECT
> transactions are useless)
You mean, you have no foreign keys in your database ?
In SELECT they are definitely useful (think select for update, isolation
level serializable...)
> - start quote -
> You'll find inserts/updates with lots of users is
> where PostgreSQL works
> well compared to other systems.
> - end quote -
> Uhhmm.. this is interesting...
pg does not lock the whole table everytime anyone wants to write in it.
In MySQL when you run a big select, all write activity stops during that.
If you run a big update, all activity other than this update has to wait.
> - why postgres use a new process for every query ?
> (mySQL, if I'm not wrong, use threads... I think its
> faster)
Not for every query, for every CONNECTION.
You are using persistant connections are you. Are you ?
> - why connection time is slower? (compared to mySQL)?
This is of no importance as everyone uses persistent connections anyway.
> - why postgres require analyze? (mySQL, if I'm not
> wrong, don't require it)
> Yours answers will be very apreciated! Thx
So it has a planner which knows what it's doing ;) instead of just
guessing in the dark.
And MySQL requires analyze too (read the docs), optimize table which
looks like vacuum to me, and sometimes repair table...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | PFC | 2005-03-04 23:24:00 | Re: Simple delete takes hours |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2005-03-04 22:27:15 | Re: Simple delete takes hours |