Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 20:08:29 -0700 From: JG <amd64list@jpgsworld.com> To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why is MySQL nearly twice as fast on Linux? Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20040523200223.01583468@mail.ojoink.com> In-Reply-To: <20040524001819.GA2713@voi.aagh.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20040523103738.01563ed0@mail.ojoink.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20040522052606.0156fd70@mail.ojoink.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20040521154458.01627688@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.2.20040521154458.01627688@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.2.20040522052606.0156fd70@mail.ojoink.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20040523103738.01563ed0@mail.ojoink.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:18 AM 5/24/2004 +0100, you wrote: >* JG (amd64list@jpgsworld.com) wrote: > > > I use 30 10000 for everything because I feel it simulates a more > > realistic load on the server (But I could be wrong). It takes a good > > 2-4 minutes between tests though.. :( > >Well, super-smack isn't that effecient; with 30 clients you'll be >getting 30 copies of it (perl I think) It's written in C++ ... you might want to minimally know what language an application is written in before you pass judgements on it or make statements of it's efficiency :-/ > sucking down millions of records Millions eh? What's 30x10000? >each; that saps a lot of power away from MySQL, so poor performance is >to be expected. No more help from you please.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.2.0.9.2.20040523200223.01583468>