On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 09:44:04AM +0100, Dave Page wrote: > It could also be argued that having a storage engine API means that > the query planner/optimiser cannot have nearly as much knowledge > about how the data is stored and what access characteristics it may > have thus preventing it from being as well optimised as Postgres. Having it divided off at the place where it's divided in MySQL is certainly such a barrier. Having a storage API, as PostgreSQL used to have, and will have again with SQL/MED, doesn't necessarily present such a barrier. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@xxxxxxxxxx> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@xxxxxxxxx iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
