Re: Benchmark

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>
Cc: Mitch Pirtle <mitch(dot)pirtle(at)gmail(dot)com>, performance pgsql <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Benchmark
Date: 2005-02-11 15:04:08
Message-ID: 873bw387fb.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> writes:

> After using oracle in the last few months.. I can see why they'd want to
> prevent those numbers.. Oracle really isn't that good. I had been under the
> impression that it was holy smokes amazingly fast. It just isn't. At least,
> in my experience it isn't. but that is another story.

Oracle's claim to performance comes not from tight coding and low overhead.
For that you use Mysql :)

Oracle's claim to performance comes from how you can throw it at a machine
with 4-16 processors and it really does get 4-16x as fast. Features like
partitioned tables, parallel query, materialized views, etc make it possible
to drive it further up the performance curve than Sybase/MSSQL or Postgres.

In terms of performance, Oracle is to Postgres as Postgres is to Mysql: More
complexity, more overhead, more layers of abstraction, but in the long run it
pays off when you need it. (Only without the user-friendliness of either
open-source softwares.)

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-02-11 16:18:30 Re: How to interpret this explain analyse?
Previous Message Jeff 2005-02-11 13:20:05 Re: Benchmark