Re: Benchmark-Comparison PostGreSQL vs. SQL Server - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Richard Huxton
Subject Re: Benchmark-Comparison PostGreSQL vs. SQL Server
Date
Msg-id 41A5C33D.5010807@archonet.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Benchmark-Comparison PostGreSQL vs. SQL Server  ("Robert Soeding" <robert.soeding@lisocon.de>)
List pgsql-general
Robert Soeding wrote:
> Hi, this is my first question here, and also, it's somewhat delicate.
> So please be patient.
>
> My question is, CAN PostGreSQL perform in the SQL Server area when it
> comes to speed? In other words, are there explanations for the
> results I found (see below)?

Faster in some cases, slower in others in my experience. Oh, and
publishing performance comparisons with another database might be in
breach of your ms-sql server licencing.

> Thanks, Robert
>
> ----- Background: 1. I read people were using PostGreSQL with
> TeraBytes of data sometimes, or thousands of users. These are things
> that could easily break SQL Server. - So I thought PostGreSQL might
> be similar fast to SQL Server.

Some people have very large installations. This obviously isn't on
Windows, and not necessarily on x86 hardware.

> 2. I did some tests: Windows XP SP2 Several GIGs free harddisk, ~400
> MB free RAM Java 1.5 / JDBC PostGreSQL 8.0 beta (through Windows
> Installer), default configuration, default driver SQL Server 2000
> SP3a, default configuration, JDTS driver Tablespaces of both
> databases on the same partition Write-Test: Creating tables (slightly
> modified TCP-W benchmark) Read-Test: Simple SELECT statements on all
> tables, returning the first 1000 rows (cursor variants: read-only and
> non-locking, resp. updatable and locking)
>
> Results: Writing: SQL Server 25 times faster. Reading: SQL Server 100
> times faster.

The figures sound wrong. The Windows port isn't likely to be as fast as
the *nix versions (certainly not yet) but those figures don't match for
my experience with PG on Linux.

Unfortunately, although you provide a lot of information, almost none of
it tells us what the problem is. So -
1. What configuration changes have you made?
2. How many concurrent connections was this?
3. Were you selecting 1000 rows (LIMIT 1000), selecting all the rows
(and only fetching 1000) or actually defining an SQL cursor.
4. What was the load on the machine - CPU or DISK peaking?
5. What was the RAM usage like?

--
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Chris Green
Date:
Subject: Re: How to display structure of a table
Next
From: "Robert Soeding"
Date:
Subject: Re: Benchmark-Comparison PostGreSQL vs. SQL Server