> > > supports is better memory management?
> > Last time i checked, MySQL didn't hav any built in caching algorithm.
That
> > was 3.22.xx version series. For disk caching MySQL depends on the OS,
and
> Was in their todo list in last year, should be done by now.
So was sub selects & stored procedures. I have yet to see these in MySQL.
> So using OS cache is not as good as having you own mechanism?
In my experience, relying on the OS cache is almost always a bad idea when u
r dealing with large files. Also with a computer that runs as a dbms server,
it is best to leave as much to dbms as u can (in fact u wud typically put
your database not on any filesystem, but on a raw partition for this
reason!)
> > shud try is to use the innodb table sets. They are faster by a big
margin.
> > The built in ISAM and myISAM tables are not as fast as the innodb
tables.
> hmm...could be. First time I heard this term "innodb".
Try out the latest version of MySQL and see if u can get a performence boost
by using innodb table types. The innodb site claims extreme performence
boost over the MyISAM tables ;)
>
> > MySQL is extremely fast for things like username lookup, and other
simple
> > table lookup/insert operations.
> and apart from sub-queries, where else is oracle faster ?
Since MySQL doesn't do sub selects, I won't say that oracle is faster than
MySQL when using sub queries ;)
Bye,
/\ |\/| |3 /\ r
================================================
To subscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subscribe in subject header
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe in subject header
Archives are available at http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd%40wpaa.org
=================================================
