Hi!
Robert Treat wrote:
> It's worth noting that the original poster was not the sqlite benchmark
> guy. Since the sqlite test is publicly available, I think you could run
> it against a more recent, tuned version and the author probably would
> accept it. In the end though I'd expect sqlite to be faster, it has a
> narrow feature set and specific scope, and we probably can't scale down
> to that level.
I don't think it's a good idea to try to compete with SQLite... Due to
its limitations (locking the whole file representing a database on
INSERT/UPDATE) it will go belly-up quite fast in the case of concurrent
write access.
The reason I posted the link for this benchmark to MySQL maillist is not
because I am perfectly happy with it, but because it clearly shows the
difference between default and tuned PostgreSQL and claims that tuned
PostgreSQL is as fast as MySQL with MyISAM (the original poster was
using InnoDB, which is most probably slower)
> (For sure we scale up higher, but that's not whats being
> measured. As for the original poster, unless he shows up on
> -performance I think his mind is already made up.
Yes, the guy does sound like a cheerleader. Let's see if he answers
anything...
