I was browsing some database mailing lists and found this message available
at:
--
(http://www.phpbuilder.com/forum/read.php3?num=2id=139678thread=139671)
I don't know MSSQL, but if it tries to compete with Oracle, it should have
this funcitonality (which oracle does):
divide tables
The test script that set up the tables is the following:
---
/* Cleanup */
DROP SEQUENCE index_with_id_seq;
DROP SEQUENCE index_without_id_seq;
DROP INDEX name_index;
DROP TABLE index_with;
DROP TABLE index_without;
/* Create a table with an index */
CREATE TABLE index_with (
id SERIAL,
I just rerun the application to confirm that it was really like that. So,
using the test-environment previously described i got the following output:
Database vacuumed
pg: Trying 1000 inserts with indexing on...
Time taken: 24 seconds
pg: Trying 1000 inserts with indexing off...
Time taken: 22
Thanks Tom,
really appreciate it!
Daniel Akerud
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CREATE TABLE index_with (
id SERIAL,
name TEXT
);
CREATE INDEX name_index ON index_with(name);
CREATE TABLE index_without (
id SERIAL,
name TEXT
);
Actually, what you are comparing here is
You might try running the ten thousand inserts as a single transaction
(do begin and end around them).
A HUGE difference (also completely took away the ID field (serial) having
only name):
Database vacuumed
pg: Trying 25000 inserts on index_with...
Time taken: 12 seconds
Database vacuumed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can't believe what a difference that made. How can it make it faster by
putting it in a transaction? I thought that would make it slower. Like only
a 100th of the time.
Everything is always a transaction in Postgres. If you don't say
begin/end, then there's an
Hi, I have a database with the 2 principal tables
using 716,819 rows and 43,157,442 rows each one, related each one, I have some
triggers and stored procedures and views having a frontend made in Visual Basic
using ODBC and ADO to connect to the database, Im considering to move from
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 06:32:58PM -0600, some SMTP stream spewed forth:
Hi, I have a database with the 2 principal tables using 716,819 rows and 43,157,442
rows each one, related each one, I have some triggers and stored procedures and views
having a frontend made in Visual Basic using ODBC
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just creating this little database for demonstrating the use of
foreign keys constraints.
I was about the create 3 tables, namely mother, father and child. Mother has
a foreign key pointing at father ( id ), and father has a
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 07:31:10PM -0600, some SMTP stream spewed forth:
I suggest you check out FreeBSD: www.freebsd.org.
If you have no experience with either FreeBSD or some Linux variant, I
would say switch to FreeBSD, otherwise use whatever you are comfortable
with other than
You should be fine on Linux. I normally would strongly *not* say to use
Linux over FreeBSD, but as I said, -current (like a beta, only better)
has been in sad state lately, and I do not know what later releases are
going to look like. It should still be better than Linux, but you
shouldn't
From the 7.1 documentation, it appears that PostgreSQL can be compiled on
the Win32 platform via Visual C++.
Has anybody has experience utilizing Watcom compilers for the Win32
environment???
I really don't wish to utilize MS in my current endeavors.
Raymond
---(end
Opinion that you dont share as I see.. but, OS and hardware appart, what
about the MSSQL vs MySQL vs PostgreSQL discussion. what you think ?
General consensus is that MySQL is the fastest for simple selects. If you
have a decent number of (more than 2 or 3) concurrent users,
PostgreSQL will
13 matches
Mail list logo
