Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL?

> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >>>> MySQL: 0.498u 0.150s 0:02.50 25.6% 10+1652k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> >>>> PgSQL: 0.494u 0.061s 0:19.78 2.7% 10+1532k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> >
> >> No --- if he were, it'd be all CPU time, not 2.7% CPU usage.
> >
> >Er, wait a second. Are we measuring backend-process runtime here,
> >or is that the result of 'time' applied to a *client* ?
>
> Yeah, that would explain a lot. When I first saw the numbers, I was so
> excited because they showed that PostgreSQL is *faster* than MySQL (with
> more memory, and better I/O).
>
> That didn't make any sense, though. MySQL is faster than every real DBMS,
> because it doesn't have transactions, triggers, locking, or any other sort
> of useful features to slow it down.
>
> The question should always be, is PostgreSQL faster than Oracle, Informix,
> or Sybase?

I am told we are the same as Ingres, and slower than Oracle with no -F,
and faster than Oracle with -F.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026