On 1 Feb 2002, Dominic Mitchell wrote: > Tod Harter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'd be pretty surprised if this caching scheme is faster than > > running queries into MySQL, that sucker is BRUTALLY fast! If you > > build derived tables and use those as caches (so you just basically > > are doing "SELECT * FROM table") it will almost certainly exceed the > > speed at which you can deserialize the data with storable. For these > > sorts of queries where you are only reading and doing none or simple > > indexing its generally about 100 times faster than Oracle, and 10 to > > 50 times faster than postgres. This is especially true with large > > tables. I have a customer with 2 tables of close to a terabyte of > > data in them and upwards of 100 million rows. SELECT times into > > these tables on a dual processor PIV Xeon with 2 gigs of ram and a > > ciprico RAID 5 box are routinely on the order of sub 1 second. > > Yes, but not everybody uses MySQL. It may be quick to do SELECTs, but > it has many other faults for a lot of people.
Do you mean besides the fact that "10 to 50 times faster than postgres" is a myth? ;-) -- <!-- Matt --> <:->Get a smart net</:-> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
