Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32B49FB2A0 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:37:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31135-01 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:36:32 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from smtp109.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp109.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com [68.142.229.96]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 661529FA217 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:36:36 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 21370 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2007 23:36:35 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:In-Reply-To:Importance; b=kqji87TcaOK7mO/c9P/h5gozYAVQdQcrjR4U0U27HgZrcZ3dja8GmqR0AKco7qME1slFys0S4IoYUNTCPWKHABe4JlGj03hVQBxGXjV02tLYcQZXknro/COovG6zG1ADl5EeHzyV1P9BITFXfmmYyqh0O/ZN1H2WAdqmD6prx90= ; Received: from unknown (HELO dualcore) (adam.r@sbcglobal.net@75.2.68.162 with login) by smtp109.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2007 23:36:34 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: jRtt4p0VM1mIu297kbFynRUApOK1jldTnljQtnyj0f1CrWlUtaC8IVb.Kniriiu2EqAkC.5Qe.v3cIWFx5HtjSEODTr2IEpYjj61U7.u6URwJg8rVwgLBX1lwAanFRzGz631sDhAsGeEV7w- From: "Adam Rich" To: "'Bricklen Anderson'" Cc: Subject: Re: Configuration Advice Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:37:48 -0600 Message-ID: <090501c73a90$7f154330$6400a8c0@dualcore> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2826 In-Reply-To: <45AE9533.7060808@presinet.com> Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200701/289 X-Sequence-Number: 22890 Sorry if this came off sounding trollish.... All databases have their strengths & weaknesses, and I feel the responsible thing to do is exploit those strengths where possible, rather than expend significant time and effort coaxing one database to do something it wasn't designed to. There's just no such thing as "one size fits all". I have professional experience with MS-SQL, Oracle, MySQL, and Postgres. and the scenario described sounds more ideal for MySQL & MyISAM than anything else: 1) No concerns for data loss (turning fsync & full_page_writes off) since the data can be reloaded 2) No need for MVCC or transactions, since the database is read-only 3) No worries about lock contention 4) Complex queries that might take advantage of the MySQL "Query Cache" since the base data never changes 5) Queries that might obtain data directly from indexes without having to touch tables (again, no need for MVCC) If loading in the base data and creating the summary table is taking a lot of time, using MySQL with MyISAM tables (and binary logging disabled) should provide significant time savings, and it doesn't sound like there's any concerns for the downsides. Yes, postgresql holds an edge over MySQL for heavy OLTP applications, I use it for that and I love it. But for the scenario the original poster is asking about, MySQL/MyISAM is ideal. -----Original Message----- From: Bricklen Anderson [mailto:banderson@presinet.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:29 PM To: Adam Rich Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Configuration Advice Adam Rich wrote: > Doesn't sound like you want postgres at all.... Try mysql. Could you explain your reason for suggesting mysql? I'm simply curious why you would offer that as a solution.