Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

From: "Mario Weilguni" <mario(dot)weilguni(at)icomedias(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks
Date: 2003-02-11 14:31:06
Message-ID: 4D618F6493CE064A844A5D496733D667039311@freedom.icomedias.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
>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?

Regards,
	Mario Weilguni

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: gregDate: 2003-02-11 14:36:40
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Benchmarks
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-02-11 14:26:08
Subject: PostgreSQL Benchmarks

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: gregDate: 2003-02-11 14:36:40
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Benchmarks
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-02-11 14:26:08
Subject: PostgreSQL Benchmarks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group