On 17 August 2010 16:00, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 17 August 2010 13:45, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 17 August 2010 04:05, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Andy 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 th
On 17 August 2010 13:45, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 17 August 2010 04:05, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andy 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 origina
On 17 August 2010 04:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andy 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
On 17/08/10 06:59, Andy wrote:
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/2569473/Migrating-from-PostgreSQL-to-MySQL-at-Cocolog-Japans-Largest-Blog-Community
>
> Are there any reasons why table & index sizes of Postgresql should be larger
> than MySQL? Postgresql uses MVCC while InnoDB does not use "full" MVCC
Andy 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 certai
--- On Mon, 8/16/10, Thom Brown wrote:
> This is quite a crude and unrealistic test (as you'd need a
> set of
> real-world data), but just did a quick test using
> PostgreSQL 9.0 alpha
> 4 and MySQL . I created a new database in both
> PostgreSQL and MySQL.
> Created the same table in both, an
On 16 August 2010 23:59, Andy wrote:
> For the same data set, with mostly text data, how does the data (table +
> index) size of Postgresql compared to that of MySQL?
>
> In this presentation, the largest blog site in Japan talked about their
> migration from Postgresql to MySQL. One of their re
Andy writes:
> Are there any reasons why table & index sizes of Postgresql should be larger
> than MySQL?
Well, the per-row headers in PG are definitely bigger because of MVCC
requirements. It's hard to speculate much about index sizes with
no information about the table/index schemas.
> The c
