Re: Benchmark
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Benchmark |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 873bw387fb.fsf@stark.xeocode.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Benchmark (Jeff <threshar@torgo.978.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Benchmark
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Jeff <threshar@torgo.978.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
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: