Hallo Drew,
Am Mittwoch, 6. Oktober 2004 um 00:04 schriebst du:
> Umm., yeah., I have a dual PII 300MHz with 256MB of RAM hosting
> suoc.syr.edu (http://suoc.syr.edu/sysinfo/";>System stats),
> and I don't have any trouble getting it to do what SUOC needs it to do.
> Granted, it doesn't r
Hello Matthew,
> As others have tried to point out, something sounds amis with your
> system. 8 hours to fetch a folder via IMAP sounds very wrong.
Well, actually the fetch never finished (or better: the mails were
never displayed in Mozilla-Mail) and what I saw was some CPU usage
because of so
"Gerrit P. Haase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I installed now Slackware. Postgres 8.0 fresh compiled, basically I
> see the same weird behaviour. There are several possibilities now:
...but the basic fact remains: something is insanely wrong in your
installation. PostgreSQL is no slower than
Hallo Tom,
Am Donnerstag, 7. Oktober 2004 um 19:32 schriebst du:
> "Gerrit P. Haase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I installed now Slackware. Postgres 8.0 fresh compiled, basically I
>> see the same weird behaviour. There are several possibilities now:
> ...but the basic fact remains: someth
"Kevin Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> installation. PostgreSQL is no slower than MySQL for similar work,
>> and it is faster under pressure, since it scales better with load
>> than MySQL does. (Same pattern, for the same reasons, as when
>> comparing Oracle to MS-SQL.)
>
> I guess a bit
> "Kevin Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> has to do. However, about two years ago, experiments
> conducted by the
> people at Slashdot showed that the two systems were
> comparable even
> for simple tasks, while PostgreSQL totally whipped MySQL
> once the
> going got tough -- it's built to h
"Kevin Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you have a reference for this slashdot article? I'd be interested
> to read it. As you say mysql has made many improvements recently,
> but I am still intersted in reviewing PgSQL in a production env,
> especially for DBMail.
My memory seems to have
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
I have figured that postgres (even the native Windows version is
very slow, I access the database now from remote and it is not
possible to get the mail via IMAP (Mozilla client). I tried to fetch
the headers 8 hours ago and the postgres server has still two processes
run
> > As others have tried to point out, something sounds amis with your
> > system. 8 hours to fetch a folder via IMAP sounds very wrong.
>
> Well, actually the fetch never finished (or better: the mails were
> never displayed in Mozilla-Mail) and what I saw was some CPU usage
> because of some I
> installation. PostgreSQL is no slower than MySQL for
> similar work,
> and it is faster under pressure, since it scales better
> with load than
> MySQL does. (Same pattern, for the same reasons, as when
> comparing
> Oracle to MS-SQL.)
I guess a bit OT for this thread, but has this been
conf
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[snip]... while PostgreSQL totally whipped MySQL once the
> going got tough -- it's built to handle complex queries, and it's also
> built to withstand the pressure of many simultaneous users. MySQL is
> not, and takes a really bad performance hit when
Aaron Stone wrote:
So... all criticisms of MySQL are exactly on target. But so what? On the
down side, we need to eschew some features and best practices in order to
support MySQL. On the up side, support is actively being added to MySQL
and we can just roll right along with it, incorportating f
ppy days...
best... Mike
- Original Message -
From: "Matthew"
To: "DBMAIL Developers Mailinglist"
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Dbmail-dev] Re: Gerrit's Speed issue
> Aaron Stone wrote:
>
> >So... all critic
On Sun, 2004-10-10 at 01:27, Aaron Stone wrote:
> Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [snip]... while PostgreSQL totally whipped MySQL once the
> > going got tough -- it's built to handle complex queries, and it's also
> > built to withstand the pressure of many simultaneous users. MySQ
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:09:43 +0200, Hans Kristian Rosbach
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another thing to consider is what todays distributions offer, an end
> user might not want to compile mysql/pgsql from scratch. (yes RPM's
> might exist). Fedora/Redhat still uses mysql 3.
Well, Fedora/RedHat us
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 10:14, Ilja Booij wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:09:43 +0200, Hans Kristian Rosbach
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another thing to consider is what todays distributions offer, an end
> > user might not want to compile mysql/pgsql from scratch. (yes RPM's
> > might exist).
Hans Kristian Rosbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I do not think dbmail should have any kind of specific (by default)
> support for mysql 4.1 in the stable releases. It is after all Gamma
> version, not even Alpha yet. Same goes for any other software that has
> not reached a feature/api freeze ye
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 10:40, Aaron Stone wrote:
> Hans Kristian Rosbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I do not think dbmail should have any kind of specific (by default)
> > support for mysql 4.1 in the stable releases. It is after all Gamma
> > version, not even Alpha yet. Same goes for any oth
http://fedoranews.org/contributors/tony_smith/mysql/
On Monday 11 October 2004 01:14 am, Ilja Booij wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:09:43 +0200, Hans Kristian Rosbach
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another thing to consider is what todays distributions offer, an end
> > user might not want to
Ummgamma?
Drew Northup, N1XIM
> -Original Message-
> From: Hans Kristian Rosbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 4:10 AM
> To: DBMAIL Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [Dbmail-dev] Re: Gerrit's Speed issue
>
>
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
