Re: [PERFORM] [dspam-users] Postgres vs. MySQL

2004-11-27 Thread Casey Allen Shobe
I posted about this a couple days ago on dspam-dev... I am using DSpam with PostgreSQL, and like you discovered the horrible performance. The reason is because the default PostgreSQL query planner settings determine that a sequence scan will be more efficient than an index scan, which is wrong.

Re: [PERFORM] [dspam-users] Postgres vs. MySQL

2004-11-27 Thread Clifton Royston
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:14:18PM +0100, Evilio del Rio wrote: I have installed the dspam filter (http://www.nuclearelephant.com/projects/dspam) on our mail server (RedHat 7.3 Linux with sendmail 8.13 and procmail). I have ~300 users with a quite low traffic of 4000 messages/day. So it's a

Re: [PERFORM] [dspam-users] Postgres vs. MySQL

2004-11-27 Thread Lionel Bouton
Casey Allen Shobe wrote the following on 11/27/04 03:11 : I posted about this a couple days ago on dspam-dev... I am using DSpam with PostgreSQL, and like you discovered the horrible performance. The reason is because the default PostgreSQL query planner settings determine that a sequence scan

Re: [PERFORM] [dspam-users] Postgres vs. MySQL

2004-11-27 Thread Christopher Browne
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Casey Allen Shobe) wrote: I posted about this a couple days ago on dspam-dev... I am using DSpam with PostgreSQL, and like you discovered the horrible performance. The reason is because the default PostgreSQL query planner