Out of curiosity I ran the "benchmark" on an untuned fairly loaded
single 1Ghz CPU box, my times based on their specs were (in seconds
rounded up):
Insert of 100 000 rows,
copied from a table 3
Sum of an integer
column from a join of
100 000 rows 3
Granted it's still slower than the InnoDB results and I did test against
7.2, but I'm sure with a little tweaking I could almost halve my times.
I have to agree with the others, something looks awful funny about their
results! However, I would add that it's all a moot point really since
the benchmark doesn't even attempt to test concurrent transactions but
that's probably for a reason! ;-)
Cheers,
Marc
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> OK,
>
> Probably people are sick of MySQL stuff, but I think this is worth having a
> squiz at. As you may be aware, InnoDB is a table handler for MySQL that
> adds row-level locking, transactions and foreign keys to MySQL. Note that
> there is NO cascade support in this implementation of foreign keys.
>
> Now, the InnoDB guys have done some benchmarks:
>
> http://www.innodb.com/bench.html
>
> However, I notice that they seem to have optimised the Postgres server
> adequately, and tested lots of concurrent users, and found that Postgres is
> basically slow and unscalable...
>
> This is for people's edification, I'm not making any further comments on the
> benchmarks!!
>
> Chris
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>
>
