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

From Michael Mattox
Subject Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
Date
Msg-id CJEBLDCHAADCLAGIGCOOEEDMCLAA.michael.mattox@verideon.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL  (Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>)
Responses Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL  ("Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>)
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL  (Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>)
List pgsql-performance
> This appears to be a "yes" answer to my question above.  Out of the
> box, PostgreSQL is set up to be able to run on a 1992-vintage SGI
> Indy with 8 M of RAM (ok, I may be exaggerating, but only by a bit);
> it is not tuned for performance.  Running without even tweaking the
> shared buffers is guaranteed to get you lousy performance.

I see this as a major problem.  How many people run postgres, decide it's
too slow and give up without digging into the documentation or coming to
this group?  This seems to be pretty common.  Even worst, they tell 10
others how slow Postgres is and then it gets a bad reputation.

In my opinion the defaults should be set up for a typical database server
machine.

Michael



pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Rod Taylor
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL