> > 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
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Ron Peacetree||Date: 2005-09-29 07:42:54|
|Subject: Re: Sequential I/O Cost (was Re: A Better External Sort?)|
|Previous:||From: Ron Peacetree||Date: 2005-09-29 06:21:10|
|Subject: Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?|