Don't Bet on Moore Saving Your Ass

Re:Don't Bet on Moore Saving Your Ass by zandorg on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @06:19PM (#424147)

I only just starting using MySQL to store tables of around 100,000 entries. But MySQL would take literally > 30 seconds (sometimes taking minutes) for a query that PostgreSQL (which I installed after it) can handle in 10 seconds.

It seems like MySQL is therefore dreck. I can't see any reason not to use PostgreSQL.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Don't Bet on Moore Saving Your Ass by zmimon on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @06:54PM (#424188)

There's something terribly horribly wrong with either your database setup or your queries. 100,000 entries is miniscule. Do you have indexes on the join columns in your queries?

(But do use Postgres, it's better than MySQL for most cases!)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Don't Bet on Moore Saving Your Ass by zandorg on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @07:13PM (#424212)

I learned SQL at University, but that was 5 years ago so I'm a bit rusty. There's 1 table with a primary key (a string ID), which is used for rows with duplicate ID's, so in theory MySQL should be quick with it.

Thanks for the info, I'll have to dig further, but at least now I know it should be fast even in MySQL.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Don't Bet on Moore Saving Your Ass by thamer on Thursday January 08, 2009 @06:08AM (#424751)

Try using EXPLAIN on your queries. That will give you a lot of info on how many rows are examined by your SELECT statements.

[ Parent | on HN ]