RE: benchmarks
От | Edmar Wiggers |
---|---|
Тема | RE: benchmarks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | NEBBIAKDCDHFGJMLHCKIKELLCAAA.edmar@brasmap.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | benchmarks ("Clayton C." <clayton@marketingchallenge.com>) |
Список | pgsql-sql |
As a former Oracle developer, I decided to start working with cheaper DBMS's. After a quick look on the market, PostgreSQL was the only one really worth looking into. But people liked MySQL, and I had to look for benchmarks. I found only one (attached). Not satisfied, I got PostgreSQL and MySQL, compiled and installed both. MySQL comes with bechmarking tools, so I decided to use them. Very impressive results for MySQL, obviously. For PgSQL, the problem was that the benchmarks were not optimized. Not even bulk loading was used. So I optimized it, and ran the test with PgSQL "NO FSYNC" option. The results were that PgSQL was slower than MySQL only by a factor of 2 or 3 (say, 3 seconds for MySQL against 6 or 8 seconds for PgSQL). Pretty good in my opinion. Note that for READ-ONLY access, PgSQL is practically as fast as MySQL. And, according to the attached document (not written by me), PgSQL gets faster when the SELECT involves several joined tables. > -----Original Message----- > hi all, > > lately at work there has been a debate over > mysql versus postgres > > im just looking for independent benchmarks > > i personally love postgres > at work they like mysql > > currently we are investigating other possible db solutions > > and they are looking at oracle, i think we could save a lot of dollarsz > if we decided to go to postgres > > > i was wondering if anyone can share links to any current independent > benchmarks > > as i would like some real data on these > > or at the very least give me a how to so i can do my own testing!
Вложения
В списке pgsql-sql по дате отправления: