Ned Lilly wrote:
>
> Greetings all,
>
> At long last, here are the results of the benchmarking tests that
> Great Bridge conducted in its initial exploration of PostgreSQL. We
> held it up so we could test the shipping release of the new
> Interbase 6.0. This is a news release that went out today.
>
> The release is also on our website at
> http://www.greatbridge.com/news/p_081420001.html. Graphics of the
> AS3AP and TPC-C test results are at
> http:/www.greatbridge.com/img/as3ap.gif and
> http://www.greatbridge.com/img/tpc-c.gif respectively.
>
> I'll try and field any questions anyone has, or refer you to someone
> who can.
i haven't played with interbase yet, but my understanding is they have
two types of server -- the "classic" (process per connection?) and a
"superserver" (multithreaded). i'm guessing the multithreaded is faster
(why bother with the added complexity if it isn't?) so which version
did you run this test against?
the other question i have is if it was possible that the disks were a
bottleneck in the test process. it seems strange that three databases
would perform nearly identically for so long if there wasn't a
bottleneck somewhere. were the drives striped? did you consider
performing the test with faster raid arrays? on a related note, i was
looking through a couple of back issues of db2 magazine, and it struck
me how much optimization and other performance hints there were
available there & how little there was for postgres. is great bridge
planning on creating a knowledge base of these optimizations for the
public? or are you planning optimization as one of the commercial
services you provide? or some of both?
jeff
