From: Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs@cybertec.at>
To: scott.marlowe <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Large databases, performance
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 18:30:47 +0200
Message-ID: <3D9DC237.8060802@cybertec.at> (raw)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0210040958440.9386-100000@css120.ihs.com>
MVCC = great ...
I know that is not row level locking but that's the way things can be
explained more easily. Many people are asking my how things work and
this way it is easier to understand. Never tell a trainee about deadlock
detection and co *g*.
I am happy that the PostgreSQL core team + all developers are not like
Monty ...
I am happy to PostgreSQL has developers such as Bruce, Tom, Jan, Marc,
Vadim, Joe, Neil, Christopher, etc. (just to name a few) ...
Yes, it is said to be better than it was but that's not the point:
MySQL = Monty SQL <> ANSI SQL ...
Believe me, the table will turn and finally the better system will succeed.
One we have clustering, PITR, etc. running people will see how real
databases work :).
Hans
scott.marlowe wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Hans-Jürgen Schönig 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.
>>If you have many concurrent transactions MySQL performs some sort of
>>"self-denial-of-service". I'd choose PostgreSQL in order to make sure
>>that the database does not block.
>>
>>
>
>While I'm no big fan of MySQL, I must point out that with innodb tables,
>the locking is row level, and the ability to handle parallel read / write
>is much improved.
>
>Also, Postgresql does NOT use row level locking, it uses MVCC, which is
>"better than row level locking" as Tom puts it.
>
>Of course, hot backup is only 2,000 Euros for an innodb table mysql, while
>hot backup for postgresql is free. :-)
>
>That said, MySQL still doesn't handle parallel load nearly as well as
>postgresql, it's just better than it once was.
>
>
>
>>Also: Keep in mind that PostgreSQL has a wonderful core team. MySQL is
>>built on Monty Widenius and the core team = Monty.
>>Also: PostgreSQL = ANSI compilant, MySQL = Monty compliant
>>
>>
>
>This is a very valid point. The "committee" that creates and steers
>Postgresql is very much a meritocracy. The "committee" that steers MySQL
>is Monty.
>
>I'm much happier knowing that every time something important needs to be
>done we have a whole cupboard full of curmudgeons arguing the fine points
>so that the "right thing" gets done.
>
>
--
*Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig*
Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43/1/913 68 09; +43/664/233 90 75
www.postgresql.at <http://www.postgresql.at;, cluster.postgresql.at
<http://cluster.postgresql.at;, www.cybertec.at
<http://www.cybertec.at;, kernel.cybertec.at <http://kernel.cybertec.at;
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: hs@cybertec.at, scott.marlowe@ihs.com, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Large databases, performance
In-Reply-To: <3D9DC237.8060802@cybertec.at>
* 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