X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489F411F6AB7 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 22:04:57 -0300 (ADT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Score: -2.389 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.389 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.135] Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LQZAr1WksJ1c for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 22:04:51 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from houston.familyhealth.com.au (houston.au.fhnetwork.com [203.22.197.21]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C49611F65A6 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 22:04:48 -0300 (ADT) Received: from houston.familyhealth.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by houston.familyhealth.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F0D2550F; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:04:46 +0800 (WST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (work-40.internal [192.168.0.40]) by houston.familyhealth.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5266A25505; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:04:45 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: <4446DED2.3040307@calorieking.com> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:07:30 +0800 From: Christopher Kings-Lynne User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane Cc: Scott Marlowe , Markus Schaber , Magnus Hagander , Pgsql performance Subject: Re: Inserts optimization? References: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA352AE@algol.sollentuna.se> <44462849.3070209@logix-tt.com> <1145460130.23538.119.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> <26519.1145460679@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <26519.1145460679@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-familyhealth-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-familyhealth-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-familyhealth-MailScanner-From: chris.kings-lynne@calorieking.com X-Archive-Number: 200604/434 X-Sequence-Number: 18518 > Scott Marlowe writes: >> It's the refusal of people to stop using MyISAM table types that's the >> real issue. > > Isn't MyISAM still the default over there? It's hardly likely that the > average MySQL user would use anything but the default table type ... Since MySQL 5, InnoDB tables are default I recall.