On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 04:26:16PM -0800, Petro wrote:
| On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 02:44:25PM -0800, Tom Cook wrote:
| > multi-user capabilities, or real scalability. Also PostgreSQL is a
|
| What is "real" scalability? I've used Mysql on tiny machines
| (Tadpole laptop) to dual processor x86 boxen with 2 gig of memory,
| and 6 way Sun e4500s with 4 gig of memory. Database sizes from
| trivial to over 150G of tables on a single machine.
I couldn't find it recently when I googled, but a while back I read
some articles written by someone at sourceforge. He was describing
the comparision he did of several RDBMSes in the deployment of
sourceforge. He found that for small dbs and light load that mysql
yielded faster responses. However (at the time at least) its locking
was table-level. This means that if someone is updating a row in a
table, then no one else can read any other row in that table.
PostgreSQL had more overhead on the small side of things, but for the
many thousands of hits per minute SF had it performed much better.
postgres has row-level locking. In the scenario above the users
can still read their rows while the other user is modifying his. In
an environment where web pages are generated from multiple queries
that merge several tables the differences were very significant. The
article provided much more detail, but that's mainly what I remember
from the top of my head. Of course, as with any case study, the
evidence is anecdotal.
HTH,
-D
--
Misfortune pursues the sinner,
but prosperity is the reward for the righteous.
Proverbs 13:21
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
