Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Ron Peacetree |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? |
Date | |
Msg-id | SnOka.15298$ey1.1322591@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? (Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>) |
Responses |
Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?
(Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? (Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
"Andrew Sullivan" <andrew@libertyrms.info> wrote in message news:20030408230518.GB32207@libertyrms.info... > On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 01:45:25PM +0000, Ron Peacetree wrote: > > Unfortunately, the performance of PostgreSQL MVCC in comparison to > > say Oracle (the performance leader amongst MVCC DB's, and pretty much > > for all DB's for that matter) is not competitive. Therefore there is > > What, is this a troll? Time will tell. Hopefully not. > The question apparently reduces to, "Why isn't PostgreSQL > as good as Oracle?" Actually, you've just used reductio absurdium, not I. My question compares PostgreSQL to the performance leaders within this domain since I'll have to justify my decisions to my bosses based on such comparisons. If you think that is unrealistic, then I wish I worked where you do. If you think that is unreasonable, then I think you're treating PostgreSQL as a religion and not a SW product that must compete against every other DB solution in the real world in order to be relevant or even survive. > 1. For what? There are things that Oracle users will tell you > not to do, because there is a faster way in Oracle. > > 2. How do you know? I haven't seen any real benchmarks > comparing PostgreSQL and Oracle similarly tuned on similar hardware. > So I'm sceptical. Please see my response(s) to Tom below. > But if you have specifica areas which you think need improvement > (and aren't already listed in the TODO), I'll bet people would like to > hear about it. Please see my posts with regards to sorting and searching, two phase execution, and two phase commit. I'll mention thread support in passing, and I'll be bringing up other stuff as I investigate. Then I'll hopefully start helping to solve some of the outstanding issues in priority order... "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in message news:4096.1049860699@sss.pgh.pa.us... > Ron, the tests that I've seen offer no support for that thesis. What tests? I've seen no tests doing head-to-head, feature-for-feature comparisons (particularly for low level features like locking) of PostgreSQL vs the "biggies": DB2, Oracle, and SQL Server. What data I have been able to find is application level, and certainly not head-to-head. From those performance results, I've had to try and extrapolate likely causes from behavioral characteristics, docs, and what internal code I can look at (clearly not much from the "biggies"). If you have specific head-to-head, feature-for-feature comparison test results to share, PLEASE do so. I need the data. > If you want us to accept such a blanket statement as fact, you'd > better back it up with evidence. Let's see some test cases. Soon as I have the HW and SW to do so, it'll happen. I have some "bet the company" decisions to make in the DB realm. Test cases are, of course, not the only possible evidence. I'll get back to you and the list on this. > Postgres certainly has plenty of performance issues, but I have no > reason to believe that the fundamental MVCC mechanism is one of > them. Where in your opinion are they then? How bad are they in comparison to MySQL or any of the "Big Three"?
pgsql-hackers by date: