From: PFC <lists@boutiquenumerique.com>
To: Amit V Shah <ashah@tagaudit.com>
To: 'Jeffrey Tenny' <jeffrey.tenny@comcast.net>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Need help to decide Mysql vs Postgres
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:41:13 +0200
Message-ID: <op.sryjazt2th1vuj@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0C072E7CC947D511AC9600A0CC7341200256CF36@xeon400.tagaudit.com>
References: <0C072E7CC947D511AC9600A0CC7341200256CF36@xeon400.tagaudit.com>
> postgres -> returns results in 2.8 seconds
What kind of plan does it do ? seq scan on the big tables and hash join
on the small tables ?
> mysql -> takes around 16 seconds !!!! (This is with myisam ... with
> innodb it takes 220 seconds)
I'm not surprised at all.
Try the same Join query but with a indexed where + order by / limit on
the big table and you should get even worse for MySQL.
I found 3 tables in a join was the maximum the MySQL planner was able to
cope with before blowing up just like you experienced.
> I am all for postgres at this point, however just want to know why I am
> getting opposite results !!! Both DBs are on the same machine
Why do you say "opposite results" ?
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: lists@boutiquenumerique.com, ashah@tagaudit.com, jeffrey.tenny@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Need help to decide Mysql vs Postgres
In-Reply-To: <op.sryjazt2th1vuj@localhost>
* 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