Re: Benchmark - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: Benchmark
Date
Msg-id 873bw387fb.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Benchmark  (Jeff <threshar@torgo.978.org>)
Responses Re: Benchmark  (PFC <lists@boutiquenumerique.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Jeff <threshar@torgo.978.org> writes:

> After using oracle in the last few months..  I can see why they'd want to
> prevent those numbers.. Oracle really isn't that good.  I had been under the
> impression that it was holy smokes amazingly fast.  It just isn't.  At least,
> in my experience it isn't.  but that is another story.

Oracle's claim to performance comes not from tight coding and low overhead.
For that you use Mysql :)

Oracle's claim to performance comes from how you can throw it at a machine
with 4-16 processors and it really does get 4-16x as fast. Features like
partitioned tables, parallel query, materialized views, etc make it possible
to drive it further up the performance curve than Sybase/MSSQL or Postgres.

In terms of performance, Oracle is to Postgres as Postgres is to Mysql: More
complexity, more overhead, more layers of abstraction, but in the long run it
pays off when you need it. (Only without the user-friendliness of either
open-source softwares.)

--
greg

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Jeff
Date:
Subject: Re: Benchmark
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: How to interpret this explain analyse?