Message-ID: <4BA25E12.20906@tweakers.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:08:34 +0100
From: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: mysql to postgresql, performance questions
References: <4BA23936.2030507@gmail.com>
	<dcc563d11003180850x35398e9dw98c53bd8b2c2cadb@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d11003180850x35398e9dw98c53bd8b2c2cadb@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 18-3-2010 16:50 Scott Marlowe wrote:
> It's different because it only takes pgsql 5 milliseconds to run the
> query, and 40 seconds to transfer the data across to your applicaiton,
> which THEN promptly throws it away.  If you run it as
>
> MySQL's client lib doesn't transfer over the whole thing.  This is
> more about how each db interface is implemented in those languages.

Its the default behavior of both PostgreSQL and MySQL to transfer the 
whole resultset over to the client. Or is that different for Ruby's 
MySQL-driver? At least in PHP the behavior is similar for both.
And I certainly do hope its 40ms rather than 40s, otherwise it would be 
a really bad performing network in either case (15s for mysql) or very 
large records (which I doubt).

I'm wondering if a new connection is made between each query. PostgreSQL 
is (afaik still is but I haven't compared that recently) a bit slower on 
that department than MySQL.

Best regards,

Arjen