On 10/29/2010 11:37 PM, Brian Hurt wrote:
>
> For the record, the table we're having trouble inserting into is ~100
> rows with ~50 indexes on it. E.F Codd is spinning in his grave. The
> reason they went with this design (instead of one that has two tables,
> each with 3-6 columns, and about that many indexes) is that "joins are
> slow". Which they may be on Mysql, I don't know. But this is
> (unfortunately) a different battle.
is that really only 100 rows or are you actually talking about columns?
if the later you will have a very hard time getting reasonable bulk/mass
loading performance in most databases (and also pg) - a table that wide
and with a that ridiculous number of indexes is just bound to be slow.
Now I actually think that the figures you are getting from innodb are
fairly reasonable...
Stefan
