Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> Outside of simple curiosity, my reason for running the benchmark was
> simply to show that in terms of performance, Oracle had it right over
> 10 years ago and that our continual discussions about leaving things
> to the OS and file system developers (because they know how to manage
> memory/data better than we do) is pointless. It illustrates that if
> Postgres ever wants to step into this century and take advantage of
> newer hardware configurations, we need to accept the fact that PG's
> inherent design has serious performance-related flaws which need to be
> addressed sooner rather than later. Similarly, I ran the same tests
> against Oracle 10g and 11g, and a properly tuned Oracle system is
> 10-100x faster than Postgres on lots of operations in both OLTP and
> DSS workloads, but because I didn't expect Postgres to be close to
> Oracle these days, I went back to comparing against 8i (Standard
> Edition) just to make my point.
10-100x?
I am confused because sometimes I hear that Postgres has bad performance
from ex-Oracle users, but in general I hear that Oracle and Postgres
have similar performance behavior from people porting applications.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
