Re: benchmarking postgres - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Ross J. Reedstrom |
---|---|
Subject | Re: benchmarking postgres |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20020213162300.GB9356@rice.edu Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: benchmarking postgres (mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
This comes up about once every 6 months. Please take it off HACKERS to ADVOCACY (do we have such a thing?), or some such. Various members of the PostgreSQL community have tried to work with the MySQL people in the past to address 'issues' with their 'benchmark': it never works out. Ross On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 08:41:50AM -0500, mlw wrote: > Ola Sundell wrote: > > > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, mlw wrote: > > > > > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > > > > > > Look at this: (top one) > > > > > > > > http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html > > > > > > > > Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to > > > > see if there's been a real speed improvement?? > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > These guys are just A$%$%holes. We have to come up with a benchmark which shows > > > the the difference between a stupid little file-locking single user toy, and a > > > real tansactional system. > > > > > > Maybe we too can put in little snide remarks about MySQL. > > > > Now, let's be a bit sensible, here. MySQL is a great product, if you want > > a single-user SQL interface to flat files. It is blazingly fast when it > > comes to retrieving information in an environment where there is little or > > no data change. > > The snide remarks on the page about things not working was a bit much. I was > ticked off. On a more serious note, MySQL isn't even really SQL. It supports a > lot of the syntax, but none of the intentions. Things like sub-selects are > vital to being able to model a problem. Transactions are vital to predictable > behavior. High concurrency is vital to "real" performance. > > I have said it at least a hundred times before, I have never been able to > finish a project started in MySQL. I always come across something that the > database *must* do, but MySQL can't. > > It is clear that anyone who runs a single user benchmark against a database > server capable of multiple connections is not testing their system in its > intended mode of use. They are resorting to the worst sort of microsoftian > benchmark FUD. > > > > > We all know the strenghts of postgresql. It is a fully-featured > > transactional database. MySQL is not, but it is neither stupid, nor a > > toy. It has its purposes, as does postgresql. > > What purpose does MySQL fit? It isn't very good at doing the sorts of things > SQL is supposed to do and there are faster database libraries (ala Berkeley > DB). What would be the point of using MySQL for anything? > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
pgsql-hackers by date: