Andy <angelf...@yahoo.com> writes: > Your results of 867MB for Postgresql & 3,576 MB for InnoDB are surprising. Do > you know why it is so much smaller for Postgresql? Are there any indexes?
If I understood the original report correctly, they were complaining mostly about index size, so a table without indexes certainly isn't a real helpful comparison. Still, this brings up an important point: AFAICS the paper doesn't even mention which mysql storage engine they're using. So it's *really* hard to tell what we're comparing to. > Are all Postgresql indexes based on GIN & GiST? No, certainly not. See http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/indexes-types.html regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
