Thread: PostgreSQL Benchmarks
Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on Win32 isn't really fair: http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance *sigh* Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database > benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on > Win32 isn't really fair: > > http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance Is there anyone here that can contact them and get more details about how the test was run? Even on Windows, I don't beleive that Postgres should be quite as slow as indicated. I'd rather someone more familiar with Windows than I take a stab at it. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200302110934 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: http://www.turnstep.com/pgp.html iD8DBQE+SQoFvJuQZxSWSsgRAi5jAJ4li+qUDlxzM1r0XLZAjDlW1oA1ZwCgiOpT 0LgCKy9W5vG0nNcYWNJGkPM= =Rrw5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 08:26, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database > benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on > Win32 isn't really fair: > > http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance > > *sigh* How much of the performance difference is from the RDBMS, from the middleware, and from the quality of implementation in the middleware. While I'm not surprised that the the cygwin version of PostgreSQL is slow, those results don't tell me anything about the quality of the middleware interface between PHP and PostgreSQL. Does anyone know if we can rule out some of the performance loss by pinning it to bad middleware implementation for PostgreSQL? Regards, -- Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net> Copeland Computer Consulting
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database > benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on > Win32 isn't really fair: > > http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance > > *sigh* Not fair, perhaps. But if you look, you'll see that *Cygwin* PostgreSQL beat most everything on the Win32 platform except MySQL and Oracle with PL/SQL. Read further and you'll see that Cygwin PostgreSQL came *really* close (within 10% or something) to MS-SQL. Considering that they weren't even running a native version of PostgreSQL, I think the results were surprisingly *good*. But yes, we really do want to be the fastest. :-) -- Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 09:26, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database > benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on > Win32 isn't really fair: > http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance > *sigh* There's fundamental flaws with this test. Well, more than that. First off, if you read the hardware specs, you know that this guy is, well, either ignorant, or flat out lying. There is no question of that - I'm familiar with the Sun E450, and it's slowest available module is the 250MHz UltraSPARC with I believe 1MB eCache. You cannot equip an E450 with two 167MHz (NOT 166MHz) processors. Secondly, it's obvious from this blatant error that the person in question is clearly not qualified to be performing a benchmark like this, or any benchmark involving cross-platform testing. We have no comparable numbers on the E450's for the other engines, whatsoever. PHP and MySQL and PostgreSQL all run on Solaris, and gcc is available from SunFreeware as a Solaris package. Point blank, this benchmark is forged or doctored, the person performing it is clearly not qualified to do this, and it completely discredits itself with a total lack of disclosure. I think it is more important to simply point this out, than to argue Pg is better than this that or the other. Just my $0.02. -- -- Ketrien Saihr-Kenchedra <ksaihr@error404.nls.net> Lead Developer and Project Mangler, LiveJournal/PostgreSQL <angry> this artist has some anger management problems <ket> angry - look who's talking.
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 09:26, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database > benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on > Win32 isn't really fair: > http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance > *sigh* There's two fundamental flaws with this test. Well, more than that. First off, if you read the hardware specs, you know that this guy is, well, either ignorant, or flat out lying. There is no question of that - I'm familiar with the Sun E450, and it's slowest available module is the 300MHz UltraSPARC with I believe 1MB eCache. You cannot equip an E450 with two 167MHz (NOT 166MHz) processors. Secondly, it's clear that something was doctored in the results or the queries, which was not mentioned, by the difference between MySQL and Oracle 8.1.7 on the purportedly 'same' Windows workstation, is absurdly slow compared to MySQL. Figures are incomplete, proper details of the systems are not provided, etcetera. Point blank, this benchmark is clearly forged or doctored, and completely discredits itself with a total lack of disclosure. I think it is more important to simply point this out, than to argue Pg is better than this that or the other, quite frankly. -- -- Ketrien Saihr-Kenchedra <ksaihr@error404.nls.net> Lead Developer and Project Mangler, LiveJournal/PostgreSQL <angry> this artist has some anger management problems <ket> angry - look who's talking.