> 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
>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 o
> 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
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
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
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 ODB
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
Microsof
[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 i
> 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 vac
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
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
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 was browsing some database mailing lists and found this message available
at:
--
(http://www.phpbuilder.com/forum/read.php3?num=2&id=139678&thread=139671)
I don't know MSSQL, but if it tries to compete with Oracle, it should have
this funcitonality (which oracle does):
divide tables
13 matches
Mail list logo
