| From: | "Mario Weilguni" <mario(dot)weilguni(at)icomedias(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks |
| Date: | 2003-02-11 14:31:06 |
| Message-ID: | 4D618F6493CE064A844A5D496733D667039311@freedom.icomedias.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
>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:
>http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance
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?
Regards,
Mario Weilguni
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | greg | 2003-02-11 14:36:40 | Re: PostgreSQL Benchmarks |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-11 14:26:08 | PostgreSQL Benchmarks |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | greg | 2003-02-11 14:36:40 | Re: PostgreSQL Benchmarks |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-11 14:26:08 | PostgreSQL Benchmarks |