On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 02:15:45PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 11/08/2012 09:29 PM, Denis wrote:
> > Ok guys, it was not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings by mentioning
> > MySQL. Sorry about that.
> It's pretty silly to be upset by someone mentioning another DB product.
> I wouldn't worry.
> > There simply was a project with a similar
> > architecture built using MySQL. When we started the current project, I have
> > made a decision to give PostgreSQL a try.
> It's certainly interesting that MySQL currently scales to much larger
> table counts better than PostgreSQL appears to.
>
> I'd like to see if this can be improved down the track. Various people
> are doing work on PostgreSQL scaling and performance, so with luck huge
> table counts will come into play there. If nothing else, supporting
> large table counts is important when dealing with very large amounts of
> data in partitioned tables.
>
> I think I saw mention of better performance with higher table counts in
> 9.3 in -hackers, too.
Yes, 9.3 does much better dumping/restoring databases with a large
number of tables. I was testing this as part of pg_upgrade performance
improvements for large tables. We have a few other things we might try
to improve for 9.3 related to caching, but that might not help in this
case.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
