4 ms·
There are a number of benefits: 1. InnoDB has certain optimizations that PG lacks which can make a big performance difference at the high end: index-only que
by HarrisonFisk 15y ago
There are a number of benefits:
1. InnoDB has certain optimizations that PG lacks which can make a big performance difference at the high end: index-only queries, insert buffer (or change buffer in MySQL 5.5+), clustered index
2. Lightweight connection creation: MySQL can handle many more concurrent connections and also can create new connections much faster due to threading vs. process model
3. More flexible replication: PG is catching up, but MySQL still has the edge here imo.
- justin_vanw 15y agoI feel the lack of index-only queries. As for lightweight connections, I see this as completely moot. While you might make tens of thousands of cheap connections to a mysql server, postgresql is much better at executing concurrent queries. Connection poolers like pgbouncer let you make as many cheap connections as you want if most of them are going to be idle anyway.
- jvdongen 15y ago1. while true, PG has other features (e.g. partial indexes) which can make a big difference as well. Completely depends on the scenario. Sometime mysql will 'win', sometimes PG. No real reason to pick one over the other, unless you know that in your situation a particular feature is a real must-have. 2. use a connection pooler (e.g. pgbouncer), problem solved, good practice anyway, even with mysql 3. what (practical) edge do you see given the replication features in 9.1?