Thread: Performance of PostgreSQL vs. Other DBs
Hi, I am currently trying to sell the usefulness of PostgreSQL to my company (A consulting firm). I need a couple convincingarguments. One thing that I was unable to find good comparisons of is performance of PostgreSQL vs. Others (Oracle,SQL Server, Sybase). Does anyone have any benchmarks that I could use to demonstrate performance of PostgreSQL againstthese other databases. By the way, even if PostgreSQL lags a little behind these numbers would still be helpful to me for 2 reasons: 1) A little lag would still show that it is almost equivalent with databases which cost significantly more. 2) Whether I should actually be pushing towards PostgreSQL if it is not performing well enough. Thanks to anyone who can give me some information on this. Any info is greatly appreciated. Mirko
Mirko Geffken wrote: > > Hi, > > I am currently trying to sell the usefulness of PostgreSQL to my company (A consulting firm). I need a couple convincingarguments. One thing that I was unable to find good comparisons of is performance of PostgreSQL vs. Others (Oracle,SQL Server, Sybase). Does anyone have any benchmarks that I could use to demonstrate performance of PostgreSQL againstthese other databases. I saw a post on this list recently from Ned Lilly of Great Bridge saying that they would be publishing some benchmark comparisons soon. That's really all I know. Stay tuned. > Hi Gunnar, > > Great Bridge has been running PostgreSQL against several of the leading > commercial contenders in some professional benchmarks (TPC-C, TPC-D, AS3AP), > and will be releasing the findings in June. I think people here will be very > happy with the results... :) > > Regards, > > Ned Lilly > VP, Hacker Relations > Great Bridge, LLC I assume that an announcement of these benchmarks will be made on this list...? ________________________ Ron Peterson rpeterson@yellowbank.com
> Hi, > > I am currently trying to sell the usefulness of PostgreSQL to my company (A consulting firm). I need a couple convincing arguments. One thing that I was unable to find good comparisons of is performance of PostgreSQL vs. Others (Oracle, SQL Server, Sybase). Does anyone have any benchmarks that I could use to demonstrate performance of PostgreSQL against these other databases. > > By the way, even if PostgreSQL lags a little behind these numbers would still be helpful to me for 2 reasons: > > 1) A little lag would still show that it is almost equivalent with databases which cost significantly more. > 2) Whether I should actually be pushing towards PostgreSQL if it is not performing well enough. > > Thanks to anyone who can give me some information on this. Any info is greatly appreciated. I seem to remember that there is something in the Oracle license the prohibits you from publishing performance analysis without Oracles approval. Such restrictions give me the willies. With such censorship in place I think it is fair (but possibly incorrect) to assume that Oracles performance is lousy.
Hello: You may wish to take a look at this link: http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-general/1999-11/msg00227.html J.R. Belding jrbelding@yahoo.com Mirko Geffken wrote: > Hi, > > I am currently trying to sell the usefulness of PostgreSQL to my company (A consulting firm). I need a couple convincingarguments. One thing that I was unable to find good comparisons of is performance of PostgreSQL vs. Others (Oracle,SQL Server, Sybase). Does anyone have any benchmarks that I could use to demonstrate performance of PostgreSQL againstthese other databases. > > By the way, even if PostgreSQL lags a little behind these numbers would still be helpful to me for 2 reasons: > > 1) A little lag would still show that it is almost equivalent with databases which cost significantly more. > 2) Whether I should actually be pushing towards PostgreSQL if it is not performing well enough. > > Thanks to anyone who can give me some information on this. Any info is greatly appreciated. > > Mirko
Ron Peterson wrote: > I saw a post on this list recently from Ned Lilly of Great Bridge saying > that they would be publishing some benchmark comparisons soon. > > > Hi Gunnar, > > > > Great Bridge has been running PostgreSQL against several of the leading > > commercial contenders in some professional benchmarks (TPC-C, TPC-D, AS3AP), > > and will be releasing the findings in June. I think people here will be very > > happy with the results... :) > > > > Regards, > > > > Ned Lilly > > VP, Hacker Relations > > Great Bridge, LLC > > I assume that an announcement of these benchmarks will be made on this > list...? Bryan White pointed out that Oracle (and Microsoft too) have squirrelly little clauses in their licenses prohibiting "publishing"benchmark results. He's right. We're thinking about fun ways to informally discuss our results, without naming particular companies' products. This listis where it will happen - stay tuned. Thanks, Ned
At 08:30 14/06/00 -0700, you wrote: >Hello: > >You may wish to take a look at this link: > >http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-general/1999-11/msg00227.html Except he's wrong about Informix - it supports row level locking (always has - long before Oracle did), it supports various isolation levels (including dirty read which allows read of a row locked for update, you decide), it allows full or incremental backup while on-line (why it's used in many 24*7 operations such as telcos and global reservation systems). I cannot comment on the failsafe as I don't really know what the tester did but it is fail safe in that a system failure will cause an automatic recover when the server is brought back up. I agree it is difficult to install (you need a couple of third-party books and/or a training course). As far as performance is concerned, it allows you to set up databases across raw-disk partitions, thus avoiding the Unix file system altogether. When configured properly it's very quick. Its also an Object Relational DBMS and incorporates much of the early work which also resulted in PostgreSQL I believe (Informix bought Illustra which came out of Postgres they then combined Illustra with their code and called it Universal Server expecting the world to beat a path to their door. AFAIK they're still waiting ). The step from Version 7.3 to 9 which he mentions isn't as great as it sounds. V9 is the version with the Object Relational extensions turned on. Its called Internet 2000 or some such now I believe. Performance comparisons with databases which allow huge degrees of tuning are always tricky. If I was setting up a big database for OLTP I'd use a different config than if I was setting it up for Data Warehousing. You tune the DB to the need - there's no 'one size fits all' at that level. I don't work for Informix but I've used it for many years. My summary would be expensive, needs experience to install, fast, reliable, badly marketed (compared to Oracle). >J.R. Belding >jrbelding@yahoo.com > > >Mirko Geffken wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I am currently trying to sell the usefulness of PostgreSQL to my > company (A consulting firm). I need a couple convincing arguments. One > thing that I was unable to find good comparisons of is performance of > PostgreSQL vs. Others (Oracle, SQL Server, Sybase). Does anyone have any > benchmarks that I could use to demonstrate performance of PostgreSQL > against these other databases. > > > > By the way, even if PostgreSQL lags a little behind these numbers would > still be helpful to me for 2 reasons: > > > > 1) A little lag would still show that it is almost equivalent with > databases which cost significantly more. > > 2) Whether I should actually be pushing towards PostgreSQL if it is not > performing well enough. > > > > Thanks to anyone who can give me some information on this. Any info is > greatly appreciated. > > > > Mirko > > Richard Moon richard@dcs.co.uk