On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 11:32 AM 10/9/2010, Craig Ringer wrote: >> >> On 10/09/2010 05:30 AM, Carlos Mennens wrote: >>> >>> I know that MySQL uses MyISAM storage engine by default and was just >>> trying to look on Google to try and see if I could understand what >>> storage engine does PostgreSQL use by default when I generate a >>> database / table. Is there some way someone (me) who knows nothing >>> about how a ORDBMS works understand the difference between all storage >>> engine options and which does PostgreSQL use by default. >> >> In MySQL terms, PostgreSQL's one and only storage engine is much more like >> InnoDB than MyISAM. That's not to say it's particularly like MySQL+InnoDB in >> behaviour, only much *more* like InnoDB than MyISAM. It's an MVCC design >> with proper transaction support (like any real database) with minimal >> locking and a focus on concurrency, data integrity and correctness. >> >> If you're used to MySQL, you'll want to read this: >> >> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Slow_Counting >> >> as it bites MySQL people all the time. > > It also affects MySQL users shifting from MyISAM to InnoDB: > http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2009/08/fast-count-for-innodb.html > > So select count isn't always fast on MySQL. > > MySQL has a long feature list which is nice for fooling the ignorant. But > you can't use many of them at the same time. Fast count? Use MyISAM. Full > text index? MyISAM. Transactions, use InnoDB. Fast concurrent inserts, use > InnoDB. So on and so forth. > > Some call it flexibility and choice... :). That's why I have a lot of respect for the Drizzle guys. Their first step was to abandon myisam completely. It might take them a while to get a finished product, but they are headed in the right direction. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
