Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED65476187 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:09:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.libertyrms.com (unknown [209.167.124.227]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C485647616D for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:09:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew by mail.libertyrms.com with local (Exim 3.22 #3 (Debian)) id 17xDDk-0001Ue-00 for ; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 17:09:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:09:20 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Large databases, performance Message-ID: <20021003170920.X18497@mail.libertyrms.com> Reply-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <3D9C8712.9513.9C6521D@localhost> <3D9CBAD7.23509.A908C61@localhost> <3D9C7579.2010206@cybertec.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3D9C7579.2010206@cybertec.at>; from postgres@cybertec.at on Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 06:51:05PM +0200 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200210/17 X-Sequence-Number: 34 On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 06:51:05PM +0200, Hans-J?rgen Sch?nig wrote: > In the case of concurrent transactions MySQL does not do as well due to > very bad locking behavious. PostgreSQL is far better because it does row > level locking instead of table locking. It is my understanding that MySQL no longer does this on InnoDB tables. Whether various bag-on-the-side table types are a good thing I will leave to others; but there's no reason to go 'round making claims about old versions of MySQL any more than there is a reason to continue to talk about PostgreSQL not being crash safe. MySQL has moved along nearly as quickly as PostgreSQL. A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x110