On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 17:06, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> Tony Caduto wrote:
> > http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/06/08/28/1738259.shtml
> >
> > Don't know the validity of this dvd order test they did, but the article
> > claims Postgresql only did 120 OPM.
> > Seems a little fishy to me.
>
> Now, this article really s**ks! First of all, the original contest was
> specifically not only about performance. And the MySQL team did a whole
> lot of dirty tricks (i.e. using memcached) to push their solution.
>
> I am the one who has written he only PostgreSQL entry, for which I'm
> still sorry and ashamed, because it performs so poorly. I just didn't
> have much spare time to spend, but thought I'd send it in anyway. One of
> the reasons it did not perform well was, that I simply have forgotten to
> enable connection pooling.
Was this all the same basic task implemented by different teams then?
Can we see the code? hack it? I'm sure someone here could help out.
I don't care about the contest, but it would be nice to be able to put
out a version that could compete with MySQL's.
