Thread: Slashdot article on PostgreSQL 7.3

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


(tip of the hat to Chris)

> We made SlashDot:
>
http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/02/11/30/1815200.shtml?tid=99

Also, there is (naturally) already some spirited discussions
on the old Postgres vs. MySQL. Me, I 'm staying out of the fray. :)

Greg Sabino Mullane  greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200211302216

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: http://www.turnstep.com/pgp.html

iD8DBQE96X9GvJuQZxSWSsgRAlBcAKCnz+n4Y4TQNFsgiMU/rhBkKC0JSQCg3TGz
QT/j6g9QeGQiuO0HX5KMaI4=
=J7qf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

For those that don't want to wade through it all, here's a summary:

PostgreSQL fans (and facts) dominated the screen by far. Most of the MySQL
vs. PostgreSQL debate consisted of a MySQL person saying something, then a
well written response debunking the claims of the MySQL user. All in all it
was a pretty civilized debate.

The Oracle vs. PostgreSQL debate was alive as well. PostgreSQL beat out
Oracle at nearly every turn though. By far Oracle was the database that
PostgreSQL was compared to.

Other posts were "Hoorah it supports XXXXX!"

Of the feature requests, built-in replication as #1. Native win32 was #2 and
there were a few requests for a good forms system.

While reading the debate, the MySQL benchmarks were brought up. It is
apparent that we need to contact MySQL (even thought hey claim to have
contacted us first) and run through a proper benchmarking. We should do a
variety of tests that mimic what MySQL people get (i.e.. forget the foreign
key constraints) and them against MySQL in transaction safe and
non-transaction safe modes, along with PostgreSQL in all her glory.

Maybe things will change when we get native win32, but I'm surprised that
PostgreSQL isn't beating out MySQL on win32. You have to pay for a license
if you use the window's binaries, where PostgreSQL is completely free.

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of
greg@turnstep.com
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 10:09 PM
To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: [pgsql-advocacy] Slashdot article on PostgreSQL 7.3



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


(tip of the hat to Chris)

> We made SlashDot:
>
http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/02/11/30/1815200.shtml?tid=99

Also, there is (naturally) already some spirited discussions
on the old Postgres vs. MySQL. Me, I 'm staying out of the fray. :)

Greg Sabino Mullane  greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200211302216

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: http://www.turnstep.com/pgp.html

iD8DBQE96X9GvJuQZxSWSsgRAlBcAKCnz+n4Y4TQNFsgiMU/rhBkKC0JSQCg3TGz
QT/j6g9QeGQiuO0HX5KMaI4=
=J7qf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

On Monday 02 December 2002 08:21 pm, you wrote:
> While reading the debate, the MySQL benchmarks were brought up. It is
> apparent that we need to contact MySQL (even thought hey claim to have
> contacted us first) and run through a proper benchmarking. We should do a
> variety of tests that mimic what MySQL people get (i.e.. forget the foreign
> key constraints) and them against MySQL in transaction safe and
> non-transaction safe modes, along with PostgreSQL in all her glory.

Is it possible to get something like TPC-C on postgresql upto a limited scale?
May be TPC won't list it but we would ahve a repeatable benchmark to start
with..

Other way around is post numerous benchmarks on live system. We would set some
criteria as in what all should a entry consist of e.g.

* database size
* number of records
* kind of queries
* best and worst performances
* hardware design
* database design
* database tuning

etc. Now if we have say hundreds of these, that would give a pretty good idea
of postgresql abilities. After all, benchmarks are supposed to do the same
thing, isn't it?

 Shridhar