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
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 |