On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:36:33 +0100
"Robert Soeding" <robert.soeding@lisocon.de> wrote:
> Hi, this is my first question here, and also, it's somewhat delicate.
> So please be patient.
> My question is, CAN PostGreSQL perform in the SQL Server area when it
> comes to speed? In other words, are there explanations for the
> results I found (see below)?
> Thanks,
> Robert
>
> -----
> Background:
> 1. I read people were using PostGreSQL with TeraBytes of data
> sometimes, or thousands of users. These are things that could easily
> break SQL Server. - So I thought PostGreSQL might be similar fast to
> SQL Server. 2. I did some tests: Windows XP SP2
> Several GIGs free harddisk, ~400 MB free RAM
> Java 1.5 / JDBC
> PostGreSQL 8.0 beta (through Windows Installer), default
> configuration, default driver SQL Server 2000 SP3a, default
> configuration,
Here's your problem right here. You're never going to get a fair
comparison unless you tune the crap out of *both* contenders.
PostgreSQL's default configuration is extremely conservative to allow
it to be run on very limited resources.
> JDTS driver Tablespaces of both databases on the same
> partition Write-Test: Creating tables (slightly modified TCP-W
> benchmark) Read-Test: Simple SELECT statements on all tables,
> returning the first 1000 rows (cursor variants: read-only and
> non-locking, resp. updatable and locking) Results:
> Writing: SQL Server 25 times faster.
> Reading: SQL Server 100 times faster.
--
Russ
