Re: MS Access out-performs PostgreSQL 7? - Mailing list pgsql-admin

Ok, once again let me make this clear...

We are not thinking of using access for our dataserver, your right, its NOT
a data SERVER. My question simply was, why does a program like access, which
is not a data server, outperform pgsql in our comparison??

I know if we loaded it down with large amounts  of data and 10s of thousands
of users, access wouldn't even think of keeping up, we are aware of this.

But.. in our tests, we have
1. a 400mhz web server, running IIS 4.0
2. a 400mhz database server running postgress AND has the access database on
it.
So its not a question of machine, its a question of software.
There are 4 tests done on each database each time the page loads.
1. insert a record of 10 rows into the databases
2. select * from the table (seems to be the longest test for pgsql)
3. update col 1 in every record
4. update col 6 in every record where col 1 = "some_criteria"

So thats it. REMEMBER, we are not going to use access! so please dont reply
about how access cant keep up in a production server enviroment, believe us,
we know!

Joe Sircy
Webmaster
dnhawaii.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacopo Silva" <jacoposilva@tin.it>
To: <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
Cc: <webmaster@dnhawaii.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: MS Access out-performs PostgreSQL 7?


> >I would like to know why access is outperforming pgsql in a simple
database
> setup.
> >I have the exact same databases, one in access, the other in pgsql,
>
> >on the same server, a linux box running redhat 6.2.
>              ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I think there has been a lot of misunderstandings...
>
> Postgresql is a "database server".
> Basically it means that
> the data is accessed by the CPU of the server (the
> machine where you install postgres).
> All other machines (e.g. your NT box with ODBC drivers)
> just send reqeusts to the server
> and get back the data they needed.
> The cpu of the clients is not performing
> any task involved in managing the data, e.g.
> checking constraints, saving files to disk, ordering,
> maintaing indexes, searching, performing joins,
> transactions, etc.
>
> If you have thousands of records and you want
> to run a complex query, with many joins, it doesen't
> matter to you if you are on a old 486 client or
> on a newer PIII.  All the work is done by the
> server, you just get the data you asked for.
>
> There are many database server available, commercial
> or OpenSource.  Microsoft's product is
> "MS SQL server" and it runs under NT.
>
> Access is not a database server.  It is just
> a file where you store your data.
> If you put the file on your hard disk or
> elsewhere in the network it does not matter.
> It is always your pc that is opening that file,
> searching for data, maintaining file integrity,
> saving again all the data when you close the
> file.
>
> If many user are opening the same Access file
> simultaneously, they are all managing the data
> in their own machine.  So if one box
> is an old 486 it will perform queries slowly
> than in another box with a newer PIII.
>
> And whether you access the file "straightly" or
> via ODBC Access driver it does not change.
> It is always your box that is running the database
> system.
>
> So first of all you cannot compare performances
> of Access on one machine and of postgres on
> another machine if you do not publish the
> differences between configurations of the boxes.
>
> But the most important difference is that
> Access is not a database server system.
> Try to guess what could happen when
> tens of users are accessing the same
> access file...  It tries to keep track
> of what users are doing and to
> manage locking of tables or rows, but...
> (that's what the .ldb file is for).
>
> So if you are in a single-user environment,
> if you don't have "mission critical" data,
> if you don't have many tables and if you
> have just few rows, if you do not want
> to know how to manage a SQL-based
> database system and if you prefer
> to user the "database creation wizards"
> go on and install Access on your Win9x box.
>
> Otherwise... give postgresql a try and you'll love it!
>
>
> Bye,
> Jacopo S.
>
>
>