Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
От | Andrew Sullivan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20030704142800.GC4592@libertyrms.info обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL ("Brian Tarbox" <btarbox@theworld.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:07:46AM -0400, Brian Tarbox wrote: > 512 mb memory, latest production versions of each database. By vanilla > RedHat I mean that I installed RH on a clean system, said install everything > and did no customization of RH settings. Does that include no customization of the Postgres settings? > We had about 40 tables in the db, with joined queries on about 8-12 tables. SELECTs only? because. . . > of records. There were indexes on all join fields, and all join fields were > listed as foriegn keys. All join fields were unique primary keys in their . . .you know that FK constraints in Postgres are not cheap, right? > I did no tuning of MySql. The only tuning for PG was to vacuum and vacuum > analyze. This appears to be a "yes" answer to my question above. Out of the box, PostgreSQL is set up to be able to run on a 1992-vintage SGI Indy with 8 M of RAM (ok, I may be exaggerating, but only by a bit); it is not tuned for performance. Running without even tweaking the shared buffers is guaranteed to get you lousy performance. A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x110
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: