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

Re: Comparative performance

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au>, "Joe" <svn(at)freedomcircle(dot)net>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Comparative performance
Date: 2005-09-29 06:29:09
Message-ID: 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE92E6D6@algol.sollentuna.se (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
> > It appears that PostgreSQL is two to three times slower 
> than MySQL.  
> > For example, some pages that have some 30,000 characters 
> (when saved 
> > as HTML) take 1 to 1 1/2 seconds with MySQL but 3 to 4 seconds with 
> > PostgreSQL.  I had read that the former was generally 
> faster than the 
> > latter, particularly for simple web applications but I was 
> hoping that 
> > Postgres' performance would not be that noticeably slower.
> 
> Are you comparing PostgreSQL on XP to MySQL on XP or 
> PostgreSQL on Linux to MySQL on Linux? Our performance on XP 
> is not great. Also, which version of PostgreSQL are you using?

That actually depends a lot on *how* you use it. I've seen pg-on-windows
deployments that come within a few percent of the linux performance.
I've also seen those that are absolutely horrible compared.

One sure way to kill the performance is to do a lot of small
connections. Using persistent connection is even more important on
Windows than it is on Unix. It could easily explain a difference like
this.

//Magnus

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Ron PeacetreeDate: 2005-09-29 07:42:54
Subject: Re: Sequential I/O Cost (was Re: A Better External Sort?)
Previous:From: Ron PeacetreeDate: 2005-09-29 06:21:10
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

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