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

Re: Perpetuating the myth...annoying

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Kaarel <kaarel(at)future(dot)ee>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Perpetuating the myth...annoying
Date: 2004-06-12 16:44:43
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On 6/10/2004 7:10 AM, Kaarel wrote:
> scott.marlowe wrote:
>>I think that if we are going to benchmark the two, and I'm all for it, we 
>>should benchmark them running something fairly standard, like the OSDL 
>>tests.  And MySQL should be using innodb tables for everything, since 
>>postgresql pretty much always carries the load of running mvcc and write 
>>ahead logging and transactions for everything it does.
> The other way, well not as good of course, would be to test PostgreSQL 
> fsync turned off against MySQL MyISAM. That wouldn't still be complitely 
> fair (unless there is a way to turn off implicit transactions of 
> PostgreSQL) though but the results could be of interest in comparing 
> PostgreSQL with default MySQL setup.

I have signed up for a project on PgFoundry (waiting for approval) to 
make my PHP implementation of TPC-W available. It is ready ported to 
MySQL 4.1.1 and runs of course on top of PostgreSQL >= 7.4.

It does take the differences in database functionality into account. 
When running on PostgreSQL, it uses set returning stored procedures. The 
same functionality is implemented in PHP of course when running on 
MySQL. This is completely according to the TPC-W specifications since 
the combination of Web Server(s) and Database is defined as System Under 
Test and what counts is the response time to HTTP requests, not how fast 
a simple select can spit out a row. The concurrency and transactional 
requirements of that test suite make InnoDB tables required anyway, and 
using pgpool PostgreSQL 7.4 currently scales better than MySQL 4.1.1. 
But I am no MySQL expert, so there might be more tuning or some query 
optimization possible ... right now the two are close enough together.

I think this is an interesting test, because it uses what a broad 
variety of MySQL based applications are written in - PHP. And it 
compares both databases on a fair level, by implementing the requested 
business logic with what is available, instead of tayloring the features 
or tests to the limited capabilities of the database.

The only thing missing to be 100% spec compliant woult be the remote 
payment gateway emulator (credit card authorization simulation). That 
would be some external server the PHP application during the order 
processing has to communicate with via SSL.

Darcy Buskermolen did get it running and I have it currently in a 
longterm test to check Slony Replication and will soon use it to develop 
semi-automatic failover procedures for webservers using pgpool.


# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2004-06-15 02:31:49
Subject: Release awards?
Previous:From: Gavin M. RoyDate: 2004-06-12 02:09:13
Subject: Re: OSCON, postgres live CD

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