Re: PostgreSQL a slow DB?

From: Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: Novice Postgresql-list <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL a slow DB?
Date: 2006-04-10 22:48:16
Message-ID: 20060410224816.13492.qmail@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice

This thread touches upon your question regarding Mysql vs. Postgresql.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-03/msg01004.php

Also from what I've read on the PG-Lists in regard to Postgres' speed, Postgresql default conf
parameters are conservatively set for cross-platform stability. ( I believe stability was the
operative word but I am not 100% sure.) It was then up to the administrator to optimize the conf
parameters to work most efficiently with their specific hardware thus producing significant
increases in server speed.

In beyond this, some of the threads indicate that additional speed increases are obtained by
selecting / arranging server hardware to fully utilize the strengths that PostgreSQL offers.

Also, in defense for the performance list. Many on the treads relating to performance problems
boil down to poor maintenance of the database. I.E. Vacuuming and Clustering. Also, many of the
other threads relate to administrators inquiries about the optimal setting for their conf files.
Lastly, the remaining threads discuss improving performance by altering SQL syntax. Very few
threads (if any) are resolved with the conclusion that Postgres is slow.

I hope this help in your evaluation.

Regards,

Richard

--- Sid Murthy <sid(dot)murthy(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> MySQL 5 is quickly catching up. Maybe someone can elaborate on the
> advantages of Postgres over MySQL 5?
>
> thanks,
> -Sid
>
> On 4/9/06, Mike <1100100(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Mr. Momjian,
> > Congratulations on the new position at EnterpriseDB.
> >
> >
> > On 4/8/06, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us > wrote:
> > >
> > > ebcorder(at)rockwellcollins(dot)com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi All
> > > >
> > > > I started using PostgreSQL\Postgis in January. Lately I have been
> > > > reading on the internet many rumblings about PostgreSQL being slower
> > > than
> > > > MySQL/SQLLite etc etc. Comparisons made were routine inserts ,
> > > updates,
> > > > and deletes. Is any of this true? If so,are there methods to speed
> > > > things up? I used the Explain Analyze command on portgesSQL it
> > > seemed
> > > > fast although I have not run any other DB's.
> > > > I know when comparison tests are performed they can be tilted on these
> > >
> > > > internet sites. But I see so many people declaring PostgreSQL to be
> > > the
> > > > slowest I am thinking where there is smoke there's fire.
> > >
> > > Lots of people still think Elvis is alive. :-)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
> > >
> > > + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Sid Murthy
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message operationsengineer1 2006-04-10 23:19:06 Re: PostgreSQL a slow DB?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-04-10 22:44:30 Re: Partitioning table - explain said that all partition tables are scanned