Kevin Grittner wrote:
It is if you don't have an index on the table which has a foreign
key defined which references the table in which you're doing
deletes. The author of the benchmark apparently didn't realize that
MySQL automatically adds such an index to the dependent table, while
PostgreSQL
Ivan Voras wrote:
I wish that, when people got the idea to run a simplistic benchmark
like this, they would at least have the common sense to put the
database on a RAM drive to avoid problems with different cylinder
speeds of rotational media and fragmentation from multiple runs.
Huh?
It's to
27 січня 2010 р. 19:01 Matthew Wakeling написав:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Віталій Тимчишин wrote:
>
>> How about SELECT SUM (case when id > 120 and id < 121 then 1 end)
>> from tbl_tracker;
>>
>
> That is very interesting.
>
>
> * All the functions should be noop for null input
>>
>
> Ala
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Віталій Тимчишин wrote:
How about SELECT SUM (case when id > 120 and id < 121 then 1 end)
from tbl_tracker;
That is very interesting.
* All the functions should be noop for null input
Alas, not true for COUNT(*), AVG(), etc.
Matthew
--
An optimist sees the gl
2010/1/26 Matthew Wakeling
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Richard Neill wrote:
>
>> SELECT SUM (case when id > 120 and id < 121 then 1 else 0 end)
>> from tbl_tracker;
>>
>> Explain shows that this does a sequential scan.
>>
>
> I'd defer to Tom on this one, but really, for Postgres to work this
On Wednesday 27 January 2010 15:49:06 Matthew Wakeling wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Thom Brown wrote:
> > Had a quick look at a benchmark someone put together of MySQL vs
> > PostgreSQL, and while PostgreSQL is generally faster, I noticed the bulk
> > delete was very slow:
> > http://www.randombug
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Mark Steben wrote:
> Hi all – sorry to create additional email ‘noise’
>
> But I’ve been trying to post a rather long query to
>
> The pgsql-performance user list. Dave thought
>
> That it might have been bounced due to the length
>
> And suggested I send a short
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> It is if you don't have an index on the table which has a foreign
> key defined which references the table in which you're doing
> deletes. The author of the benchmark apparently didn't realize that
> MySQL automatically adds such an index
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Mark Steben wrote:
Subject: [PERFORM] test send (recommended by Dave Page)
Hi all - sorry to create additional email 'noise'
But I've been trying to post a rather long query to
The pgsql-performance user list. Dave thought
That it might have been bounced due to the lengt
Hi all - sorry to create additional email 'noise'
But I've been trying to post a rather long query to
The pgsql-performance user list. Dave thought
That it might have been bounced due to the length
And suggested I send a short 'blast'
If this works I'll send a shortened version of my query
Thom Brown wrote:
> Had a quick look at a benchmark someone put together of MySQL vs
> PostgreSQL, and while PostgreSQL is generally faster, I noticed
> the bulk delete was very slow:
> http://www.randombugs.com/linux/mysql-postgresql-benchmarks.html
>
> Is this normal?
It is if you don't hav
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Thom Brown wrote:
Had a quick look at a benchmark someone put together of MySQL vs PostgreSQL,
and while PostgreSQL is generally faster, I noticed the bulk delete was very
slow: http://www.randombugs.com/linux/mysql-postgresql-benchmarks.html
Is this normal?
On the contrar
On 01/27/10 14:28, Thom Brown wrote:
Had a quick look at a benchmark someone put together of MySQL vs
PostgreSQL, and while PostgreSQL is generally faster, I noticed the bulk
delete was very slow:
http://www.randombugs.com/linux/mysql-postgresql-benchmarks.html
I wish that, when people got the
Had a quick look at a benchmark someone put together of MySQL vs PostgreSQL,
and while PostgreSQL is generally faster, I noticed the bulk delete was very
slow: http://www.randombugs.com/linux/mysql-postgresql-benchmarks.html
Is this normal?
Thom
14 matches
Mail list logo
