| From: | "Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
|---|---|
| To: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks |
| Date: | 2003-02-12 06:14:54 |
| Message-ID: | 200302121144.54878.shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday 11 Feb 2003 8:01 pm, Mario Weilguni wrote:
> >Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database
> >benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on
> >Win32 isn't really fair:
> >
> >http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance
>
> And why is the highly advocated transaction capable MySQL 4 not tested?
> That's the problem, for every performance test they choose ISAM tables, and
> when transactions are mentioned it's said "MySQL has transactions". But why
> no benchmarks?
I did benchmark mysql/postgresql/oracle sometime back. Mysql with transaction
is 90% as fast as postgresql. But it dies down with increased number of users
no matter how much resources you throw at it.
Oracle is 130% of postgresql. This was postgresql 7.2.x series so things have
changed for sure, but you got the idea, right?
Shridhar
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> | 2003-02-12 06:21:44 | Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy] |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-12 05:35:38 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> | 2003-02-12 06:21:44 | Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy] |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-12 05:51:22 | Re: Projection while performing joins. |