Re: [pgsql-advocacy] MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Adam Ruth
Subject Re: [pgsql-advocacy] MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test?
Date
Msg-id 8B730E67-55EF-11D8-B13C-000A959D1424@mac.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-advocacy] MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test?  (Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>)
List pgsql-performance
Wow, I didn't know that (didn't get far enough to test any rollback).
That's not a good thing.  <facetious>But then again, it's MySQL who
needs rollback anyway?</facetious>

On Feb 2, 2004, at 5:44 PM, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

>> One more thing that annoyed me.  If you started a process, such as a
>> large DDL operation, or heaven forbid, a cartesian join (what?  I
>> never do that!).
>
> I believe InnoDB also has O(n) rollback time.  eg. if you are rolling
> back 100 million row changes, it takes a long, long time.  In
> PostgreSQL rolling back is O(1)...
>
> Chris
>


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Database conversion woes...
Next
From: Richard Huxton
Date:
Subject: Re: Database conversion woes...