On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jonah H. Harris <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> ISTM you are the one throwing out unsubstantiated assertions without
>>> data to back it up. OP ran benchmark. showed hardware/configs, and
>>> demonstrated result. He was careful to hedge expectations and gave
>>> rationale for his analysis methods.
>> As I pointed out in my last email, he makes claims about PG being faster
>> than Oracle and MySQL based on his results. I've already pointed out
>> significant tuning considerations, for both Postgres and Oracle, which his
>> benchmark did not take into account.
>> This group really surprises me sometimes. For such a smart group of people,
>> I'm not sure why everyone seems to have a problem pointing out design flaws,
>> etc. in -hackers, yet when we want to look good, we'll overlook blatant
>> flaws where benchmarks are concerned.
> The biggest flaw in the benchmark by far has got to be that it was
> done with a ramdisk, so it's really only measuring CPU consumption.
> Measuring CPU consumption is interesting, but it doesn't have a lot to
Agreed. As soon as I saw that I pretty much threw the results out the window.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Sergio Lopez||Date: 2009-02-20 23:04:45|
|Subject: Re: Benchmark comparing PostgreSQL, MySQL and Oracle|
|Previous:||From: Scott Marlowe||Date: 2009-02-20 21:56:54|
|Subject: Re: postgreSQL performance 8.2.6 vs 8.3.3|