Re: More grist for the PostgreSQL vs MySQL mill - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: More grist for the PostgreSQL vs MySQL mill
Date
Msg-id 1714.1169435044@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: More grist for the PostgreSQL vs MySQL mill  ("Shashank Tripathi" <shashank.tripathi@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
"Shashank Tripathi" <shashank.tripathi@gmail.com> writes:
>> select something from othertable;
>> select * from table where table_id in (?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ...)

> This is what MySQL's CEO Martin said in an interview on Slashdot. If
> we can manage two queries as above through, say, a PHP application,
> with each executing in 0.004 seconds, then an optimized subquery needs
> to be beat the 0.008 mark to be a viable alternative.

That certainly *should* be possible, because the subquery approach
requires one less network round-trip, and less data marshaling/
transmission/demarshalling/back-the-other-way.  If MySQL is seriously
making that argument as a reason why they need not put work into
subselects, you should be hearing strong echoes of their former
positions about "you don't need foreign keys" and so on.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: documentation vs reality: template databases
Next
From: Chris
Date:
Subject: Re: More grist for the PostgreSQL vs MySQL mill