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

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

From: Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>
To: Mario Weilguni <mario(dot)weilguni(at)icomedias(dot)com>
Cc: PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks
Date: 2003-02-11 14:47:02
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 08:31, Mario Weilguni wrote:
> >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:
> >
> 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?

Insert Statement

Not using bind variables (MySQL and Oracle): 

Using bind variables: 

PL/SQL Insert Benchmark
Appears to not initiate a transaction.  I'm assuming this is because
it's implicitly within a transaction?  Oddly enough, I am seeing
explicit commits here.

It appears that the benchmarks are attempting to use transactions,
however, I have no idea if MySQL's HEAP supports them.  For all I know,
transactions are being silently ignored.


Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net>
Copeland Computer Consulting

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2003-02-11 14:48:11
Subject: Hash grouping, aggregates
Previous:From: Greg CopelandDate: 2003-02-11 14:39:38
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2003-02-11 15:44:07
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks
Previous:From: Greg CopelandDate: 2003-02-11 14:39:38
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group