Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 18:09:28 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres performance
Message-ID: <20050302230928.GA4736@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
References: <d64dda1e.0502230229.3deaf864@posting.google.com>
	<421D8ABC.2030601@archonet.com>
	<d64dda1e.0503010252.67c2312d@posting.google.com>
	<1109775613.30529.359.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
	<opsm05ecu9th1vuj@musicbox>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <opsm05ecu9th1vuj@musicbox>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i

This sort of discussion should really go onto -performance, but I'm
at pains to stomp out a common misperception.

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:45:38PM +0100, PFC wrote:
> 
> 	Sure, postgres is (a bit but not much) slower for a simple
> 	query like SELECT * FROM one table WHERE id=some number, and

This is true _only if_ nobody else is writing at the same time you
are.  That is, for single-user or read-only databases, MySQL appears
to have a really significant advantage when using the standard MyISAM
table type.  The problem with that table type is that it requires the
_whole table_ be locked during write operations.  

In any case, for any sort of real database work, nobody sane would
use anything except the InnoDB table type.  That's a more reasonable
fruit-comparison than MySQL using MyISAM.  In the latter case, you
may as well compare PostgreSQL to flat file writing. 

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are
against all taxes for raising money to pay it off.
		--Alexander Hamilton