Thread: Jav Database Performance
Hi, Walter Cruz wrote: > Have anyone seen this? > > http://devloop.org.uk/documentation/database-performance/ Looks like a good, well documented benchmark. Was well worth the read. Probably even more if you're more into Java than I am. What's surprising me is, that PostgreSQL often was 'only marginally slower' compared to MySQL. First, I thought: wow, MySQL must have improved. But later on, I've read that they tested the MyISAM storage engine. Thus, I'm surprised that a) they perform only marginally better, and b) that the results are so close and similar. I can only conclude, that PostgreSQL does a very well job in keeping the costs of consistency very low. ;-) Regards Markus
Markus Schiltknecht wrote: > Hi, > > Walter Cruz wrote: >> Have anyone seen this? >> >> http://devloop.org.uk/documentation/database-performance/ > > Looks like a good, well documented benchmark. Was well worth the read. > Probably even more if you're more into Java than I am. > > What's surprising me is, that PostgreSQL often was 'only marginally > slower' compared to MySQL. First, I thought: wow, MySQL must have > improved. But later on, I've read that they tested the MyISAM storage > engine. Thus, I'm surprised that > > a) they perform only marginally better, and > > b) that the results are so close and similar. > > I can only conclude, that PostgreSQL does a very well job in keeping the > costs of consistency very low. ;-) Or: We Rock! Joshua D. Drake > > Regards > > Markus > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
* Markus Schiltknecht: > I can only conclude, that PostgreSQL does a very well job in keeping > the costs of consistency very low. ;-) And the cost of indexes. Which makes me doubt whether there is a systematic error in the benchmark. Perhaps this is a result of the small working set.
Hi, Florian Weimer wrote: > And the cost of indexes. Which makes me doubt whether there is a > systematic error in the benchmark. Perhaps this is a result of the > small working set. Uh.. I thought they probably have the same indexes on MySQL as on PostgreSQL... Markus
* Markus Schiltknecht: >> And the cost of indexes. Which makes me doubt whether there is a >> systematic error in the benchmark. Perhaps this is a result of the >> small working set. > > Uh.. I thought they probably have the same indexes on MySQL as on > PostgreSQL... No, I meant the comment on the bottom of page 11. But I'm not sure if the data backs it, the diagram is so hard to read.
Walter, > http://devloop.org.uk/documentation/database-performance/ Hmmm ... we could use someone to run a properly configured PostgreSQL on his test. I'm pleasantly surprised by how well we did against other DBs with *no performance tuning*. Cool! -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
On Apr 23, 2007, at 8:36 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> http://devloop.org.uk/documentation/database-performance/ > > Hmmm ... we could use someone to run a properly configured > PostgreSQL on his > test. I'm pleasantly surprised by how well we did against other DBs > with *no > performance tuning*. Cool! Better yet would be if we shipped with different configs so they could at least pick a more reasonable configuration for their hardware. Something else that comes to mind... if they're running the default config, they're not running autovacuum; so were they vacuuming at all? -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)