Re: [HACKERS] Large databases, performance - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Andrew Sullivan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Large databases, performance
Date
Msg-id 20021003170920.X18497@mail.libertyrms.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Large databases, performance  (Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres@cybertec.at>)
List pgsql-performance
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
<andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Jean-Luc Lachance
Date:
Subject: use [PERF] instead of
Next
From: "Shridhar Daithankar"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Large databases, performance