Re: Why Not MySQL?
От | The Hermit Hacker |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why Not MySQL? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.BSF.4.21.0005042120300.56194-100000@thelab.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why Not MySQL? ("Mitch Vincent" <mitch@huntsvilleal.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 4 May 2000, Mitch Vincent wrote: > > Well, drat. Looks like 7.0's query plan is slower :-(. There's > > something fishy about the numbers for 6.5.3 though --- how could it have > > done that query with zero blocks read? Are you sure you are comparing > > apples to apples here? I wonder whether the 6.5 system already had the > > tables cached in kernel disk buffers while 7.0 was working from a > > standing start and had to physically go to the disk. > > This is very possible as the 6.5.3 PG is running on the production server > which is constantly being queried. > > >Also, did both > > versions have the same -B and -S settings? > > I didn't specify any -B or -S settings so both are using their respective > defaults.. For you machine, go with something like '-S <32*1024>' to use 32Meg of RAM for ORDER/GROUP BY ... Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: