On Nov 26, 2007 9:14 AM, Stefan Manegold
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 08:41:31AM +0100, Markus Gritsch wrote:
Yes, this would be the case in an ideal world :) Nevertheless the system could take some hints from the schema designer into account (via indexes), in case he exactly knows how the schema is queried and what columns can benefit greatly from having an indexed on them.
However, if the cost of maintaining the indices under updates exceeds the (potential) benefits of exploiting the indices for queries, the investment is debatable.
True. But there are cases (as in mine) where the cost of maintaining the indices does not exceed the benefit of having indexes for queries. Having fast queries without specifying an index would of course be ideal, so I would love to see MonetDB achieving this.
Or, in other words, even without "old-fashioned" indices, MonetDB/SQL appears to outperform MySQL by more than a factor 3 (in your case).
Please look at my e-mail again. MonetDB outperforms MySQL in my case only when *not* using the index i.e. querying over the "entries" of *all* "acts", which is very good. Unfortunately, as already posted in my original e-mail, in the common case (in my application) of querying only over the "entries" of the *open* "acts", MonetDB is 3x slower than MySQL. Markus