Re: Performance of PostgreSQL vs. Other DBs - Mailing list pgsql-general

At 08:30 14/06/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello:
>
>You may wish to take a look at this link:
>
>http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-general/1999-11/msg00227.html

Except he's wrong about Informix - it supports row level locking (always
has - long before Oracle did), it supports various isolation levels
(including dirty read which allows read of a row locked for update, you
decide), it allows full or incremental backup while on-line (why it's used
in many 24*7 operations such as telcos and global reservation systems). I
cannot comment on the failsafe as I don't really know what the tester did
but it is fail safe in that a system failure will cause an automatic
recover when the server is brought back up.

I agree it is difficult to install (you need a couple of third-party books
and/or a training course). As far as performance is concerned, it allows
you to set up databases across raw-disk partitions, thus avoiding the Unix
file system altogether. When configured properly it's very quick.

Its also an Object Relational DBMS and incorporates much of the early work
which also resulted in PostgreSQL I believe (Informix bought Illustra which
came out of Postgres  they then combined Illustra with their code and
called it Universal Server expecting the world to beat a path to their
door. AFAIK they're still waiting ).

The step from Version 7.3 to 9 which he mentions isn't as great as it
sounds. V9 is the version with the Object Relational extensions turned on.
Its called Internet 2000 or some such now I believe.

Performance comparisons with databases which allow huge degrees of tuning
are always tricky. If I was setting up a big database for OLTP I'd use a
different config than if I was setting it up for Data Warehousing. You tune
the DB to the need - there's no 'one size fits all' at that level.

I don't work for Informix but I've used it for many years. My summary would
be expensive, needs experience to install, fast, reliable, badly marketed
(compared to Oracle).


>J.R. Belding
>jrbelding@yahoo.com
>
>
>Mirko Geffken wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am currently trying to sell the usefulness of PostgreSQL to my
> company (A consulting firm). I need a couple convincing arguments. One
> thing that I was unable to find good comparisons of is performance of
> PostgreSQL vs. Others (Oracle, SQL Server, Sybase). Does anyone have any
> benchmarks that I could use to demonstrate performance of PostgreSQL
> against these other databases.
> >
> > By the way, even if PostgreSQL lags a little behind these numbers would
> still be helpful to me for 2 reasons:
> >
> > 1) A little lag would still show that it is almost equivalent with
> databases which cost significantly more.
> > 2) Whether I should actually be pushing towards PostgreSQL if it is not
> performing well enough.
> >
> > Thanks to anyone who can give me some information on this. Any info is
> greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Mirko
>
>


Richard Moon
richard@dcs.co.uk