On 23-Sep-06, at 9:49 AM, Guido Neitzer wrote:
> On 9/23/06, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:
>
>> 1) The database fits entirely in memory, so this is really only
>> testing CPU, not I/O which should be taken into account IMO
>
> I don't think this really is a reason that MySQL broke down on ten or
> more concurrent connections. The RAM might be, but I don't think so
> too in this case as it represents exactly what we have seen in similar
> tests. MySQL performs quite well on easy queries and not so much
> concurrency. We don't have that case very often in my company ... we
> have at least ten to twenty connections to the db performing
> statements. And we have some fairly complex statements running very
> often.
>
> Nevertheless - a benchmark is a benchmark. Nothing else. We prefer
> PostgreSQL for other reasons then higher performance (which it has for
> lots of situations).
I should make myself clear. I like the results of the benchmark. But
I wanted to keep things in perspective.
Dave
>
> cug
>
> --
> PostgreSQL Bootcamp, Big Nerd Ranch Europe, Nov 2006
> http://www.bignerdranch.com/news/2006-08-21.shtml
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that
> your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
