Paul Thomas wrote:
Looks like he's using the default postgresql.conf settings in which
case I'm not suprised at pg looking so slow. His stated use of foreign
keys invalidates the tests anyway as MyISAM tables don't support FKs
so we're probably seeing FK check overheads in pg that are simply
i
Folks,
I've sent a polite e-mail to Mr. Gomez offering our help. Please, nobody
flame him!
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 21/04/2004 14:31 Cestmir Hybl wrote:
> Looks like he's using the default postgresql.conf settings in which
case
> I'm not suprised at pg looking so slow.
The question also is, IMHO, why the hell, postgreSQL still comes out of
the
box with so stupid configuration defaults, totally underestimated
> Looks like he's using the default postgresql.conf settings in which case
> I'm not suprised at pg looking so slow.
The question also is, IMHO, why the hell, postgreSQL still comes out of the
box with so stupid configuration defaults, totally underestimated for todays
average hardware configurati
On 21/04/2004 09:31 Nick Barr wrote:
Hi,
Has anyone had a look at:
http://people.ac.upc.es/zgomez/
I realize that MySQL & PG cannot really be compared (especially when you
consider the issues that MySQL has with things like data integrity) but
still surely PG would perform better than the stat
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 08:19, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > I realize that MySQL & PG cannot really be compared (especially when you
> > consider the issues that MySQL has with things like data integrity) but
> > still surely PG would perform better than the stats show (i.e. #7 31.28
> > seconds versus 4
> I realize that MySQL & PG cannot really be compared (especially when you
> consider the issues that MySQL has with things like data integrity) but
> still surely PG would perform better than the stats show (i.e. #7 31.28
> seconds versus 42 minutes!!!).
We know that PostgreSQL 7.5 will perfor
