Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
From: Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>
To: shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in
Cc: Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <3F05E144.10448.6784AB@localhost>
References: <20030704142800.GC4592@libertyrms.info>
	<3F05E144.10448.6784AB@localhost>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="=-r/1V0UJGfDBh4LCQPRIG"
Message-Id: <1057331162.40425.79.camel@jester>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: 04 Jul 2003 11:06:03 -0400

--=-r/1V0UJGfDBh4LCQPRIG
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> 2. Postgresql uses shared memory being process based architecture. Mysql =
uses=20
> process memory being threaded application. It does not need  kernel setti=
ngs to=20
> work and usually works best it can.

MySQL has other issues with the kernel due to their threading choice=20
such as memory limits per process, or poor threaded SMP support on some
platforms (inability for a single process to use more than one CPU at a=20
time regardless of thread count).

Threads aren't an easy way around kernel limitations, which is probably
why Apache has gone for a combination of the two -- but of course that
adds complexity.

--=-r/1V0UJGfDBh4LCQPRIG
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQA/BZfa6DETLow6vwwRAkKgAJ4/2hla5cg/wWKXn/QtcB+8LBCg9ACfQqaf
llZtDf7hMXsK/JcMyiH9qOw=
=chdW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-r/1V0UJGfDBh4LCQPRIG--