On 17 August 2010 04:05, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Andy <angelflow@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Your results of 867MB for Postgresql & 3,576 MB for InnoDB are surprising. Do you know why it is so much smaller for Postgresql? Are there any indexes? > > If I understood the original report correctly, they were complaining > mostly about index size, so a table without indexes certainly isn't > a real helpful comparison. Yeah, I did attempt to create a full text GIN index on that last night, but it was taking ages and it was getting late, so abandoned it. If you're interested, I set up one on MySQL's version (MyISAM of course) and it was around 108 MB. The problem is, if PostgreSQL's index was, say, 600 MB, it might still not be fair to compare it since they make not really be equivalent. But those slides leave a lot of important information out. And even if it clearly explained everything in detail, they're talking about 7.4 and 8.0. The world has changed since then. -- Thom Brown Registered Linux user: #516935 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
