Re: PostgreSQL a slow DB?

Christopher Browne wrote:

>Quoth "Relaxin" <me(at)yourhouse(dot)com>:
>
>
>>"Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote in message
>>news:200604131313(dot)k3DDD6Q05741(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us(dot)(dot)(dot)
>>
>>
>>>My point was that:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>slowest I am thinking where there is smoke there's fire.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>is not a valid method of analysis.
>>>
>>>
>>It works for me...
>>
>>
>
>Except when it doesn't work. It's a completely non-scientific method
>of determining answers, and has *enormous* bias due to ignorance.
>
>
Watching this thread leads me to believe that:
1) There may - or - may not be an existing MySql production database.
2) The developer(s) have not installed/tested PostgreSQL.
3) An internal discussion is taking place, with the desired goal being
to make an "either/or" decision, without actual comparison testing.

I would suggest that IF the production database is sufficiently
important AND the end goal is to make a choice based on performance,
then both dbs should be installed and compared using the desired
functionality. If after comparison testing, PG comes out on the short
end, then post specifics to this list and there are a fair # of users
that MAY be able to make suggestions that could substantially improve PG
performance for the specific usage.

If this dual level of testing is more work than desired, then the
desired production database is not sufficiently important and the
discussion is moot.

So the first step would seem to be answering the question, "Is the
project important enough to warrant comparison testing?" If it is, then
the project enables a "scientific method" of analysis and this group can
help (with sufficient facts) in the final decision-making process.

In short, "trust no one", instead, trust the methodology.