Re: Multi DB performance test - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Scott Marlowe
Subject Re: Multi DB performance test
Date
Msg-id 1173799678.12681.1.camel@state.g2switchworks.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Multi DB performance test  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 23:46, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Tadej Kanizar" <Tadej.Kanizar@sagit-server.com> writes:
> > http://devloop.org.uk/documentation/database-performance/
> > Any comments?
>
> Old news, see this thread:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-02/msg00806.php
>
> Most of us stopped reading about the place where they explained
> that (a) they did zero tuning on each database, and (b) they were
> comparing myisam to transactional engines.
>
> It's amazing how many people do not understand that database performance
> testing is actually a pretty hard problem in itself --- simplistic tests
> will almost never show you the real-world bottlenecks.

While I still agree that the tests are overly simple, and don't really
give a good feel for a real world database, I just want to point out
that they have updated their testing and results to now include innodb
and berkely table types for mysql.

Sadly, they still do no transactions, they just compare single statement
innodb / berkely to myisam.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: insert rule instead oddity
Next
From: "Olivier Ceulemans"
Date:
Subject: More information on how to understand table pg_locks.