Re: more anti-postgresql FUD

On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 06:25:21PM -0300, Jorge Godoy wrote:
> "Jacob Coby" <jcoby(at)listingbook(dot)com> writes:
>
> > We were looking to improve our session performance, so I did a basic
> > test of using mysql 4.0 innodb vs postgres 8.1. The test did a simple
> > retrieve, update, save; 1 time per page. mysql was stock, pg had a
> > shared_buffers and a couple of other standard tweaks done. ab was used
> > to provide the load. server was an old dell pe2450 with 640mb of ram.
> > tables were simple and a single primary key-foreign key relationship
> > between them.
> >
> > pg was not only faster, it scaled to higher concurrency and had more
> > predictable response times. mysql nosed over at around 5 concurrent
> > connections. pg went to somewhere around 15.
> >
> > the more I read, the more it seems that mysql speed is a myth. it may
> > be faster for simple flat-text sort of operations with one or two
> > concurrent users where the app maintains RI, validates all data, and
> > handles all of the complex joins. it just doesn't seem to scale up as
> > well as pg.
>
> I'm sorry but you tuned PG and not MySQL. This by itself makes that claim a
> problem. If you used PG stock versys MySQL stock, then it would be more
> valid. When comparing two things you have to give them the most fair
> condition that is possible (i.e., either put two experts to tune both or use
> both as shipped by their suppliers).

Not necessarily. Last I heard, MySQL ships with multiple config files,
ie: small, medium and large. So by choosing one of those you're
effectively tuning MySQL as well.

If you want a real apples-apples out-of-the-box, run MySQL with a small
config and PostgreSQL stock.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)