Yeah, I guess I didn't make myself clear. It wouldn't have mattered which DB
I would have ended up sticking with. Postgres or MySQL. Using a table that
is 30,000+ rows and growing fast would have dogged any system. What it all
comes down to is if you are going to be expecting a massive number of
queries constantly, then you need to manage your tables to be more efficient
and be able to get the answers you want without the system needing to parse
through too much BS. This holds true for any DB.
I ended up sticking with Postgres, not neccesarily because I preferred it,
but because I'm a lazy sack and didn't want to reconvert my scripts to pull
from a different DB. In my personal experience I haven't noticed any
performance benefits either way between MySQL and Postgres.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marten Feldtmann [mailto:M.Feldtmann@t-online.de]
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 12:43 PM
To: toma@nutz.org
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Lack of Performance
Toma Vailikit schrieb:
>
> Postgres is MUCH happier to do many more queries that pull from little
> tables than to do one query from one bigger table. The biggest table I
have
> at this point will always be the main index table, which now holds about
400
> rows.
>
But this is typical for every database !?
* Smaller tables increases the chance, that no further pages have to
be reloaded from disc. The table is fully in RAM.
* Smaller tables does mean smaller indices storage or perhaps even
no need for indices.
etc ....
Marten
