Drake Diedrich wrote:
...
>/usr/doc/postgresql-doc/FAQ.gz
>--
> 2.11) How do I tune the database engine for better performance?
>
> There are several things that can be done. You can disable fsync() by
> starting the postmaster with a '-o -F' option. T
On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 11:03:22AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> No DBMS syncy after each transaction. Most systems do it every 30 seconds.
> Support for that will be added to Postgres later on. And with 80 TPS I think
/usr/doc/postgresql-doc/FAQ.gz
--
2.11) How do I
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Gergely Madarasz writes:
> > I find it much faster, it uses less resources... of course it has less
> > features too, but you dont always need subselects and transactions.
>
> It doesn't have transactions? Whew, I never expected that.
You can lock the
Drake Diedrich writes:
>In some tests I ran, I found that postgres was only capable of 4
> transactions per second in the default configuration. The speed could be
> increased to 80 transactions/sec if you were willing to turn off the
> automatic disk syncing. It is not clear from the mysql d
Gergely Madarasz writes:
> I find it much faster, it uses less resources... of course it has less
> features too, but you dont always need subselects and transactions.
It doesn't have transactions? Whew, I never expected that.
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meskes, Project-Manager| topsystem System
Raul Miller writes:
> I'm aware of two issues:
>
> (1) mysql is significantly faster
Will comment on this one later.
> (2) postgres forces you to abandon ansi sql for a number of things
> where mysql allows you to use ansi sql.
Which ansi sql feature is missing?
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meske
> Meskes, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please tell me what exactly you like more about mysql in comparison to
> > PostgreSQL which really is DFSG free.
>
On Sat, Jun 13, 1998 at 07:55:46PM -0500, Erv Walter wrote:
> 1) Speed
> 2) While neither completely implements SQL92 and newer stan
Meskes, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please tell me what exactly you like more about mysql in comparison to
> PostgreSQL which really is DFSG free.
1) Speed
2) While neither completely implements SQL92 and newer standards, the
portion that mysql implements is more useful for my application
Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 1998 at 01:48:58AM -0400, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> > After carefully reading over the license of Mysql it seems like it could
> > be included in the main
> > distribution area.
> >
> > I am wondering exactly what parts are preventing it from being
> > inclu
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Meskes, Michael wrote:
> Please tell me what exactly you like more about mysql in comparison to
> PostgreSQL which really is DFSG free.
I find it much faster, it uses less resources... of course it has less
features too, but you dont always need subselects and transactions.
] | 52146 Wuerselen
Go SF49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! | Tel: (+49) 2405/4670-44
> --
> From: Kevin Atkinson[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Samstag, 13. Juni 1998 07:48
> To: debian-devel
> Subject: Including Mysql in the Main Distrubation
>
> Tr
On Sat, Jun 13, 1998 at 01:48:58AM -0400, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> After carefully reading over the license of Mysql it seems like it could
> be included in the main
> distribution area.
>
> I am wondering exactly what parts are preventing it from being
> included.
>
> Is it that you must purcha
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
>
> Is it that you must purchase it if you wish to develop commercial
> applications that require it?
And that you cannot sell it.
--
Madarasz Gergely [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's practically impossible to look at a
After carefully reading over the license of Mysql it seems like it could
be included in the main
distribution area.
I am wondering exactly what parts are preventing it from being
included.
Is it that you must purchase it if you wish to develop commercial
applications that require it?
Truefully
14 matches
Mail list logo
