On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, [ISO-8859-1] Hans-J$B|(Brgen Sch$Bv(Bnig wrote:
(B
(B> >+ people measure postgresql by the speed of bulk imports
(B>
(B> This is a good point. I can complete agree. What we might need is
(B> something called "SQL Loader" or so. This may sound funny and it doesn't
(B> make technical sense but it is an OBVIOUS way of importing data. People
(B> often forget to use transactions or don't know about COPY.
(B
(BEven "doing it right," postgres 7.2 was significantly slower than MySQL
(Bfor bulk data imports, at least for tables with relatively narrow rows.
(BI was going to put this down to higher row overhead, except that it was
(Bnowhere near raw file I/O speed, either.
(B
(BSo this could use improvement, if it's not been improved already.
(B
(BThere's room for performance increases in a lot of other areas, too, but
(Bin the end, a lot of people just don't design their databases for good
(Bperformance. And I've killed enough non-postgres database servers in my
(Blife to know that if you don't really know what you're doing, you can
(Beasily make the performance of any DBMS suck. :-)
(B
(BPersonally, I think there's still a fair amount of room in the features
(Barea, too. I'm always running into something that I'd like to have.
(BToday it was being able to defer a UNIQUE constraint.
(B
(Bcjs
(B--
(BCurt Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
(B Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
(B
(B---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
(BTIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
(B
(Bhttp://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
