From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, yoav x <yoav112003(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: sql-bench |
Date: | 2006-09-13 21:10:25 |
Message-ID: | 1158181825.24726.4.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 14:36, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 9/13/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > IIRC, with these settings PG 8.0 seemed to be about half the speed of
> > mysql 5.0 w/myisam, which is probably somewhere in the ballpark of the
> > truth for tests of this nature, ie, single query stream of fairly simple
> > queries. If you try concurrent-update scenarios or something that
> > stresses planning ability you may arrive at different results though.
> > I have not retested with more recent versions.
>
> if postgresql uses prepared statements for such queries, it will
> roughly tie mysql/myisam in raw query output on this type of load
> which also happens to be very easy to prepare...afaik mysql gets zero
> performance benefit from preparing statements This is extremely
> trivial to test&confirm even on a shell script. [aside: will this
> still be the case if peter e's planner changes become reality?]
>
> another cheater trick benchmarkers do to disparage postgresql is to
> not run analyze intentionally. Basically all production postgresql
> systems of any size will run analyze on cron.
>
> another small aside, I caught the sqlite people actually *detuning*
> postgresql for performance by turning stats_command_string=on in
> postgresql.conf. The way it was portrayed it almost looked like
> cheating. I busted them on it (go to
> http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=SpeedComparison and look for the
> remarks right below the results)
They're running autovacuum, which requires that, doesn't it?
I'd rather them be running autovacuum than not vacuuming / analyzing at
all. And autovacuum is a pretty realistic setting for most databases (I
use it on my production machines.)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua Marsh | 2006-09-13 21:18:49 | Re: Performance With Joins on Large Tables |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-13 21:09:44 | Re: Performance With Joins on Large Tables |