[CentOS] Centos/Linux Disk Caching, might be OT in some ways

JohnS jses27 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 26 07:30:53 UTC 2010


On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 13:41 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
> JohnS wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 08:19 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
> >> Are complicated relationships being stored in postgresql and not in 
> >> mysql? I do not know how things are now but mysql has a history of only 
> >> being good for simple selects.
> > 
> > Selects can get very upity for mysql as in "VIEWS".  They can do Concat,
> > Inner Join and Outter among many more things.  VIEW myview as SELECT can
> > do some very very logical calcs and predictions.  I promise it is not
> > just for simple selects.
> > 
> 
> By 'being good only for simple selects' I meant performance wise. Which 
> is what this thread is all about - performance. Sure you can make 
> complicated queries on mysql but compared to postgresql they would take 
> quite some time. Again, this is based on stuff in the past. Maybe mysql 
> has improved now.

Sure, I knew what you meant, but we gonna Bang Heads on your definition
of simple selects.  I can't compare performance to postgresql but I am
willing to bet that mysql can do alot more.  Doing something like a
"Breadth First" or "Depth First" logical operation, it is sad for me to
even say MySQL is faster in that area with predictions than MSSQL.
Having said that I really love mssql and sqlce. Now we getting OT.

Great things started to happen with mysql @ version 5 >.  Now it's just
probally going to wither away.  Who really knows?

> I am just happy that more stuff started supporting postgresql before the 
> Sun buyout. They would have had some time to mature instead of a frantic 
> 'we need to add/convert to postgresql just in case'. But I will still go 
> for mysql with connection caching if it is just a simple table lookup 
> that needs to be remotely querable.




More information about the CentOS mailing list