Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Tom Dryden |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison |
Date | |
Msg-id | 37FBFEE8.C6D395B0@earthlink.net Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>) |
List | pgsql-general |
I think that everyone is dancing all around the crux of the problem. Benchmarks define a set of circumstances by which products are compared. To define a problem space that does not favor one system or the other is a non trivial problem in and of itself. Real world tasks are complex and have many facets. So, how do we define a single real world task that represents a fair distribution and utilization of the features that are important in multiple problem spaces? I don't know, and haven't seen one yet. We should accept that one solution is better in a situation and another is better in another but understand the criteria. Does this sound too much like ENGINEERING? An understanding of what a particular benchmark is designed to illustrate is far more important than the results of a particular test. Know YOUR problem space and pick a product that fits. Tom "Aaron J. Seigo" wrote: > hi all... > > > Note that it would be much better to write a benchmark that can be run > > against any SQL server. As the MySQL benchmarks are designed to do > > exactly this, I would suggest that you use the MySQL benchmark suit as > > a base for this! > > i disagree heartily. standardized benchmarks such as these are rediculous wastes > of time, especially when done with database engines. why? > > because, as has been shown time and time again on both sides of any fence you > look at in our wonderful world of software, benchmarks usually favour one side > or the other due to the fact that they are standard. well, software isn't > standard. MySQL and PostgreSQL use different methods for handling queries, > indecies, data, etc.. should we expect the exact same queries to perform equally > well on both? no! it will most probably favour one or the other, depending how > it is written. i'm not saying this is always intentional, its merely a fact > about software and standardized benchmarking as i see it. > > what is better? well, what is software used for? to run arbitrary > queries/functions? NO! to solve a problem, complete a task. SO. give me a task. > allow me to use the software to complete that task. because in the real world, > i don't write the same queries in the same way for two different database > engines. i don't use X the same way i use Windows. i don't use GIMP the same > way i use photoshop. > > benchmarks are a waste of time. problem solutions designec for the products at > hand show the REAL potential of the systems and can't be screwed with. after > all, all parties are going to use everything they can to make it fast. same > results. different paths. different software. apples and apples. > > its not the method. its the answer to the question. > > > I don't think the important things is just to optimize some specific > > queries; It's much more important to test a lot of different types of > > queries. > > on this i agree. so, lets optimize all the queries (or not =), but leave it to > the hackers at their discretion. > > > I think it's important to using queries that are common to many > > applications. > > > > For normal queries there isn't that much to optimize. There is of > > course also the option to add some test to 'solve some problem'. In > > this case one can use different methods to solve the query for > > different databases; Normally these kind of tests are more > > interesting than useful as this isn't normally portable between > > database servers. > > portability is a non issue, in my mind. when i use a database engine, i use > every nook and cranny of it when querying, etc to get performance. example: > would you forgo (sp) using PL/SQL in Oracle because it isn't supported the > exact same way everywhere (anywhere?) else? of course not. portability is a non > issue. problem solution power when given to a skilled user is. or an unskilled > user. > > i think such tests are more telling than benchmarks. benchmarks are > interesting, but completely uninterpretable in a meaningful way (see above). > problem solution capability shows the true power of a system, esp. if that > system has unique ways of doing things that REALLY make a difference. > > > Aaron> this is open source, remember? its about choice. its about the right tool for > > Aaron> the right job. its about a FUDless environment where we get the tools to do > > Aaron> what we NEED to do. > > > > This is exactly the aim of the MySQL benchmarks. (They are GPL) > > this (GPLing) is indeed applaudable! > > > Aaron> as coordinator, i'd be willing to collect the final parameters, communicate > > Aaron> with representatives from each side (probably the developers?) and post the > > Aaron> results (after running them, of course :-) > > > > In this case; Can you take a look at the MySQL benchmark suite and > > comment on this? > > i believe my comments above stand. i do not support benchmarking. it only works > when you have two identical systems. but the point of such exercises is to > differences between DIFFERENT systems. =) > > that said (again), i'll go grab the crash_me test suite and look it over, toss > in my 2 cents, if i have that much at the end of the exercise =) > > -- > Aaron J. Seigo > Sys Admin > > ************
pgsql-general by date: