From: Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>
To: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
Cc: Ron Peacetree <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort?
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:03:52 +0300
Message-ID: <1128175432.5359.11.camel@fuji.krosing.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BF62F06E.10617%llonergan@greenplum.com>
References: <BF62F06E.10617%llonergan@greenplum.com>
On R, 2005-09-30 at 13:38 -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote:
>
> Bulk loading speed is irrelevant here - that is dominated by parsing, which
> we have covered copiously (har har) previously and have sped up by 500%,
> which still makes Postgres < 1/2 the loading speed of MySQL.
Is this < 1/2 of MySQL with WAL on different spindle and/or WAL
disabled ?
--
Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: hannu@skype.net, llonergan@greenplum.com, rjpeace@earthlink.net, josh@agliodbs.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort?
In-Reply-To: <1128175432.5359.11.camel@fuji.krosing.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox