Thread: mysql/pgsql benchmarks

mysql/pgsql benchmarks

From
Lukas Kahwe Smith
Date:
Hi,

just saw this [1] blog post from Peter about these benchmarks [2]

regards,
Lukas

[1]
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/11/30/interesting-mysql-and-postgresql-benchmarks/
[2] http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/6

Re: mysql/pgsql benchmarks

From
Thomas Hallgren
Date:
Sweet. I like this one even better http://tweakers.net/reviews/649/7

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren

Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just saw this [1] blog post from Peter about these benchmarks [2]
>
> regards,
> Lukas
>
> [1]
> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/11/30/interesting-mysql-and-postgresql-benchmarks/
>
> [2] http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/6
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>       match
>

Re: mysql/pgsql benchmarks

From
"Mikael Carneholm"
Date:
Here are (all?) four reviews I've found so far:

http://pda.tweakers.net/?reviews/638    (30 juli 2006)

http://pda.tweakers.net/?reviews/646    (7 september 2006)

http://pda.tweakers.net/?reviews/649    (26 oktober 2006)

http://pda.tweakers.net/?reviews/657    (13 november 2006)

/Mikael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-
> owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Lukas Kahwe Smith
> Sent: den 1 december 2006 07:37
> To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
> Subject: [pgsql-advocacy] mysql/pgsql benchmarks
>
> Hi,
>
> just saw this [1] blog post from Peter about these benchmarks [2]
>
> regards,
> Lukas
>
> [1]
> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/11/30/interesting-mysql-and-
> postgresql-benchmarks/
> [2] http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/6
>
> ---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>        choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>        match


Re: mysql/pgsql benchmarks

From
Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
http://tweakers.net/reviews/649/1

etc. look great. However, However I could not get the idea what kind
of benchmark programs (i.e. DB size, schema, SQL...) were used. Am I
missing something?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan

> Hi,
>
> just saw this [1] blog post from Peter about these benchmarks [2]
>
> regards,
> Lukas
>
> [1]
> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/11/30/interesting-mysql-and-postgresql-benchmarks/
> [2] http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/6

From: Thomas Hallgren <thomas@tada.se>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] mysql/pgsql benchmarks
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 13:08:21 +0100
Message-ID: <ekp5vl$n5q$1@sea.gmane.org>

> Sweet. I like this one even better http://tweakers.net/reviews/649/7
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Hallgren
>
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > just saw this [1] blog post from Peter about these benchmarks [2]
> >
> > regards,
> > Lukas
> >
> > [1]
> > http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/11/30/interesting-mysql-and-postgresql-benchmarks/
> >
> > [2] http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/6
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> >       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> >       match
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>        choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>        match
>

Re: mysql/pgsql benchmarks

From
Michael Paesold
Date:
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> http://tweakers.net/reviews/649/1
>
> etc. look great. However, However I could not get the idea what kind
> of benchmark programs (i.e. DB size, schema, SQL...) were used. Am I
> missing something?

At least some information is available here:
http://tweakers.net/reviews/646/9

(Still not too much description, no schema etc.)

 From the article:
 > ... The active part of the database encompasses only a few gigabytes,
 > allowing systems with 4GB to 8GB to take the entire working set into
 > memory, so that even with 2GB there is not much disk activity. ...

Best Regards
Michael Paesold