Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL - Mailing list pgsql-performance

On 4 Jul 2003 at 10:07, Brian Tarbox wrote:

> Ok, I'll give more data :-)
>
> Under both MySql and Postgres the tests were run on a variety of systems,
> all with similar results.  My own personal testing was done on a P4 2.4Mhz,
> 512 mb memory, latest production versions of each database.  By vanilla
> RedHat I mean that I installed RH on a clean system, said install everything
> and did no customization of RH settings.
> We had about 40 tables in the db, with joined queries on about 8-12 tables.
> Some tables had 10,000 records, some 1000 records, other tables had dozens
> of records.  There were indexes on all join fields, and all join fields were
> listed as foriegn keys.  All join fields were unique primary keys in their
> home table (so the index distribution would be very spread out).  I'm not
> permitted to post the actual tables as per company policy.
>
> I did no tuning of MySql.  The only tuning for PG was to vacuum and vacuum
> analyze.

No wonder pg bombed out so badly. In fact I am surprised it was slower only by
factor of 3.

Rule of thumb is if you have more than 1K records in any table, you got to tune
postgresql.conf. I don't think I need to elaborate what difference tuning in
postgresql.conf can make.

>
> I'll also mention that comments like this one are not productive:
>
> >I don't think Brian has any interest in being helped.
>
> Please understand the limits of how much information a consultant can submit
> to an open list like this about a client's confidential information.  I've
> answered every question I _can_ answer and when I get hostility in response
> all I can do is sigh and move on.

Well, definition of threshold of hostile response differ from person to person.
That is understood but by internet standards, I don't think you have received
any hostile response. But that's not the topic I would like to continue to
discuss.

What I would suggest you is to look at some other performance problem
description submitted earlier. I don't think these guys have permission to
disclose sensitive data either but they did everything they could in their
limits.

Look at, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2003-06/msg00134.php
and the thread thereof. You can reach there from
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2003-06/threads.php

There is a reason why Michael got so many and so detailed responses. Within
your limits, I am sure you could have posted more and earlier rather than
posting details when original thread is long gone.


> I'm sorry if Shridhar is upset that I can't validate his favorite db but ad
> hominin comments aren't helpful.

I have no problems personally if postgresql does not work with you. The very
first reason I stick with postgresql is that it works best for me. The moment
it does not work for somebody else, there is a potential problem which I would
like to rectify ASAP. That is the idea of getting on lists and forums.

It's not about product as much it is about helping each other.

And certainly. I have posted weirder qeuries here and I disagree that you
couldn't post more. However this is a judgement from what you have posted and
by all chances it is wrong. Never mind that.

At the end, it's the problem and solution that matters. Peace..

Bye
 Shridhar

--
Murphy's Laws:    (1) If anything can go wrong, it will.    (2) Nothing is as easy as
it looks.    (3) Everything takes longer than you think it will.