Re: [PERFORM] MySQL+InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL test?

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:46:05 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> writes:
> > Not sure at what point it will topple, in my case it didn't matter
> > if it ran good with 5 clients as I'll always have many more clients
> > than 5.
>
> I did some idle, very unscientific tests the other day that indicated
> that MySQL insert performance starts to suck with just 2 concurrent
> inserters. Given a file containing 10000 INSERT commands, a single
> mysql client ran the file in about a second. So if I feed the file
> simultaneously to two mysqls in two shell windows, it should take
> about two seconds total to do the 20000 inserts, right? The observed
> times were 13 to 15 seconds. (I believe this is with a MyISAM table,
> since I just said CREATE TABLE without any options.)
>

MyISAM is well known to suck if you update/insert/delete because it
simply aquires a full table lock when you perform those operations!

InnoDB is supposed to be better at that.

So your results are fairly in line with what you should see.

--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/