I think any comparison between mysql and postgresql is faulty. I have used
mysql for a very long time. As my skills matured and I was entrusted with
larger projects, I could no longer make an intelligent case to use mysql over
postgresql. I needed more from my database.
Most arguments in fav
John, you may not like it but we are in a competitive marketing environment
with MySQL (even if both products are open source), and also with Oracle,
SQL*Server, etc.
The MySQL folks will take every chance they get to point out instances where
PostgreSQL performance is inferior to MySQL (and that
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 10:30 +0800, Shashank Tripathi wrote:
> The problem is when the number of rows exceeds 30 million, MySQL
> performance degrades substantially. For most people, this is not an
> issue. PG is solid with huge databases, but in my experience, even the
> most optimized subselect on
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 10:01, Shashank wrote:
> > It seems MySQL just dropped the ball on
> > the free version of their product, and it
>
> Not sure what you mean. I can download their latest versions without
> any trouble.
>
>
> > Additionally, they feel that Oracle is such a threat that they ha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/22/07 05:49, Peter Rosenthal wrote:
> Right,
>
> You also have to realize that your first query might return zero results,
> and MySQL (and maybe this is correct SQL behavior) balks at an empty value
> set "where table_id in ()".
>
> I would ex
Chad,
select * from table where table_id in (?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ...)
> I usually try to rewrite this kind of queries to
>
> select whatever from table t1 join
> (select table_id from x where x) t2 using (table_id)
>
>
Because the results would be different than a subselect, less
On 1/22/07, Harald Armin Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> select * from table where table_id in (?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ...)
>
>
I usually try to rewrite this kind of queries to
select whatever from table t1 join
(select table_id from x where x) t2 using (table_id)
And 3 out of 4 this
>> select * from table where table_id in (?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ...)
I usually try to rewrite this kind of queries to
select whatever from table t1 join
(select table_id from x where x) t2 using (table_id)
And 3 out of 4 this performs better on Oracle and PostgreSQL.
Would be curious
Right,
You also have to realize that your first query might return zero results,
and MySQL (and maybe this is correct SQL behavior) balks at an empty value
set "where table_id in ()".
I would expect that giving the DBMS the whole picture of what you want to
do, should allow it to make better dec
Shashank Tripathi wrote:
select something from othertable;
select * from table where table_id in (?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ...)
This is what MySQL's CEO Martin said in an interview on Slashdot. If
we can manage two queries as above through, say, a PHP application,
with each executing in 0.004 seco
"Shashank Tripathi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> select something from othertable;
>> select * from table where table_id in (?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ...)
> This is what MySQL's CEO Martin said in an interview on Slashdot. If
> we can manage two queries as above through, say, a PHP application,
> wi
select something from othertable;
select * from table where table_id in (?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ...)
This is what MySQL's CEO Martin said in an interview on Slashdot. If
we can manage two queries as above through, say, a PHP application,
with each executing in 0.004 seconds, then an optimized sub
Back on topic, I can confirm that MySQL does indeed have various problems
with optimizing sub-selects.
There are times where doing two seperate selects is orders of magnitude
faster than doing a single with a sub-select due to index selection
decisions.
Namely:
select * from table where table_i
On 2007-01-21, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And no BDB (at least last I checked is not GPL)
>
> It's BSD (for obvious reasons), no?
No, Sleepycat's licence is _NOT_ BSD.
--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/21/07 10:20, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Shashank wrote:
[snip]
>> Where is this announcement? They don't need to drop either
>> engine, as both are GPL. MySQL as a group was never too hot
>> with BDB.
>
>
> http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shashank wrote:
>>> It seems MySQL just dropped the ball on
>>> the free version of their product, and it
>>
>> Not sure what you mean. I can download their latest versions without
>> any trouble.
> In contrast to the MySQL Enterprise Server, which
On 21 Jan 2007 08:01:57 -0800, Shashank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems MySQL just dropped the ball on
> the free version of their product, and it
Not sure what you mean. I can download their latest versions without
any trouble.
The point was they are not going to the effort to roll bi
Shashank wrote:
>> It seems MySQL just dropped the ball on
>> the free version of their product, and it
>
> Not sure what you mean. I can download their latest versions without
> any trouble.
>
In contrast to the MySQL Enterprise Server, which receives both monthly
rapid updates and quarterly se
> It seems MySQL just dropped the ball on
> the free version of their product, and it
Not sure what you mean. I can download their latest versions without
any trouble.
> Additionally, they feel that Oracle is such a threat that they have dumped
> BDB (I believe this move was after Oracle acquire
Shashank Tripathi wrote:
>> It's a valid discussion here (although better on -advocacy), because
>> it helps
>> me have the right facts to present to clients about whether they
>> should stay
>> with a legacy database in MySQL vs upgrading to a modern PostgreSQL.
>
>
> For all its flaws, MySQL is
On 1/20/07, John Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I think bothers me is this whole concept that if PostgreSQL is to
flourish, MySQL has to be beaten down. Folks, both products are free,
both can be used in the same shop (maybe not on the same computer if
your running them in production).
2007/1/21, Shashank Tripathi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
For all its flaws, MySQL is catching on quick and has a very active
community of developments that several of us find rather handy -
http://forge.mysql.com/
Is there something similar for Pgsql?
http://pgfoundry.org/>
greetings,
Nicolas
--
N
It's a valid discussion here (although better on -advocacy), because it helps
me have the right facts to present to clients about whether they should stay
with a legacy database in MySQL vs upgrading to a modern PostgreSQL.
For all its flaws, MySQL is catching on quick and has a very active
com
> "John" == John Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> I'd say fine, but why discuss the flaws of MySQL on a PostgreSQL list?
John> If you want to correct it, why not put that flaw on a MySQL list. And
John> yes, I agree, there is a difference between pointing out a legitimate
John> flaw an
I'd say fine, but why discuss the flaws of MySQL on a PostgreSQL list?
If you want to correct it, why not put that flaw on a MySQL list. And
yes, I agree, there is a difference between pointing out a legitimate
flaw and simply bashing for bashing's sake.
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> John Meyer wrote:
John Meyer wrote:
> What I think bothers me is this whole concept that if PostgreSQL is to
> flourish, MySQL has to be beaten down. Folks, both products are free,
> both can be used in the same shop (maybe not on the same computer if
> your running them in production). Putting down MySQL will not
What I think bothers me is this whole concept that if PostgreSQL is to
flourish, MySQL has to be beaten down. Folks, both products are free,
both can be used in the same shop (maybe not on the same computer if
your running them in production). Putting down MySQL will not make
PostgreSQL any bette
"Michael Nolan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> select count(*) from memmast where memid in (select plr_rated_memid from
> tnmt_plr where plr_eventid in ('200607163681');
> This query takes about a second on PostgreSQL but takes OVER SEVEN MINUTES
> on MySQL!
Yeah, and we probably would have sucked
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 01/20/07 16:52, Michael Nolan wrote:
>> select plr_rated_memid from tnmt_plr where plr_eventid in ('200607163681');
> Is this query created by an application? I.e, there might be a list
> of PLR_EVENTIDs?
> If so, I understand why it is like it is. O
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It's exactly what I would do...
On 01/20/07 17:09, Michael Nolan wrote:
> This is a generated query in a web form where there could be a series of 12
> digit event IDs input by the user, hence using the 'in' form. This is
> slightly lazy programming
This is a generated query in a web form where there could be a series of 12
digit event IDs input by the user, hence using the 'in' form. This is
slightly lazy programming on my part, but it makes little difference in
either PostgreSQL or MySQL whether I use = or 'in'.
--
Mike Nolan
On 1/20/07,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/20/07 16:52, Michael Nolan wrote:
> I have a MySQL table on our public website that is populated from a similar
> table on our internal site, which runs PostgreSQL.
>
> Recently I was trying to enhance one of our website queries and ran across
>
I have a MySQL table on our public website that is populated from a similar
table on our internal site, which runs PostgreSQL.
Recently I was trying to enhance one of our website queries and ran across
an interesting phenomenon:
The following query runs very quickly in both PostgreSQL (8.1.3) an
33 matches
Mail list logo
