Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 17:16:40 -0500
From: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>
To: Joe <svn@freedomcircle.net>
Cc: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>,
 pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Comparative performance
Message-ID: <20051004221640.GI40138@pervasive.com>
References: <433B4AA4.9080008@freedomcircle.net> <op.sxu1g5bnth1vuj@localhost>
	<433BDFF3.3090402@freedomcircle.net>
	<433BEA7B.1050405@pse-consulting.de>
	<433C5108.6070202@freedomcircle.net>
	<20051004204122.GV40138@pervasive.com>
	<4342EFF7.5010405@freedomcircle.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4342EFF7.5010405@freedomcircle.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 05:11:19PM -0400, Joe wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >Also, just because no one else has mentioned it, remember that it's very
> >easy to get MySQL into a mode where you have no data integrity. If
> >that's the case it's going to be faster than PostgreSQL (though I'm not
> >sure how much that affects the performance of SELECTs).
> 
> Yes indeed.  When I added the REFERENCES to the schema and reran the 
> conversion scripts, aside from having to reorder the table creation and 
> loading (they used to be in alphabetical order), I also found a few 
> referential integrity errors in the MySQL data.

Data integrity != refferential integrity. :) It's very easy to
accidentally get MyISAM tables in MySQL, which means you are nowhere
near ACID which also means you can't get anything close to an apples to
apples comparison to PostgreSQL.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461