Re: Benchmarks of MySQL, MaxDB, PostgreSQL, and Oracle
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Benchmarks of MySQL, MaxDB, PostgreSQL, and Oracle |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 26823.1111677967@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Benchmarks of MySQL, MaxDB, PostgreSQL, and Oracle ("CN" <cnliou9@fastmail.fm>) |
Список | pgsql-benchmarks |
"CN" <cnliou9@fastmail.fm> writes: > A person compared the performances of MySQL, MaxDB, PostgreSQL, and > Oracle, and posted his result at > http://laser.dyndns.pgsqldb.com/index.php?rid=1923&S=aeac79693ab902121ccb13957fb65d8c&t=msg&th=5893&start=0&logoff=1 Ah, your good old basic MySQL-friendly benchmark design: let's test one client doing one trivial query type over and over, so we can ignore all those nasty concurrency issues. Oh, and let's not say anything about configuration, so no one can tell if the various DBs have been set up reasonably. Postgres would probably show up better on platforms other than Windows; the native Windows port is brand new and hasn't been shaken out at all as far as performance goes. In particular, assuming that this was run with the default fsync mode, it probably suffers badly from the fsync- is-writethrough-on-Windows problem that was just recently fixed. > Should we ignore all of them? Pretty much. Any "benchmark" testing only one query type, and as poorly documented as this, is not really worth the trouble to respond to anyway. (If I could read Chinese maybe I'd not think it was so poorly documented, but there surely isn't a lot of info on that page about the test conditions.) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-benchmarks по дате отправления: