Thread: benchmarking postgres
Look at this: (top one) http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to see if there's been a real speed improvement?? Chris
Why not attach a hundred users and run the same test. MySQL will be licking *everyone's* boots. Each and every program listed would positively slam them into the floor and grind their face in the dirt (unless they have made some monumental improvements recently). If a single user database is wanted, MySQL is just the ticket. When it gets a bunch of users and has to do complex stuff, it goes into the toilet. As far as benchmarks go, TPC-C, TPC-H, TPC-W and TPC-R would be interesting. Trying to beat a toy database under silly conditions is a waste of time. -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Kings-Lynne [mailto:chriskl@familyhealth.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 10:40 PM To: Hackers Subject: [HACKERS] benchmarking postgres Look at this: (top one) http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to see if there's been a real speed improvement?? Chris ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Dann Corbit wrote: > Why not attach a hundred users and run the same test. MySQL will be > licking *everyone's* boots. Each and every program listed would > positively slam them into the floor and grind their face in the dirt > (unless they have made some monumental improvements recently). > >> http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html >> >> Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 >> to >> see if there's been a real speed improvement?? Why don't we have some pretty graphs like that on the postgres site? I agree that the mysql tests against single user are useless, but users see the FUD of pretty pictures and are mislead. If mysql is giving out information like that, shouldn't we also have some pretty pictures? If they exist, i've never seen them on the main site. Thoughts.. - Brandon ----------------------------------------------------------------------------c: 646-456-5455 h: 201-798-4983b. palmer, bpalmer@crimelabs.net pgp:crimelabs.net/bpalmer.pgp5
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > Look at this: (top one) > > http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html > > Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to > see if there's been a real speed improvement?? > > Chris These guys are just A$%$%holes. We have to come up with a benchmark which shows the the difference between a stupid little file-locking single user toy, and a real tansactional system. Maybe we too can put in little snide remarks about MySQL.
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, mlw wrote: > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > > Look at this: (top one) > > > > http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html > > > > Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to > > see if there's been a real speed improvement?? > > > > Chris > > These guys are just A$%$%holes. We have to come up with a benchmark which shows > the the difference between a stupid little file-locking single user toy, and a > real tansactional system. > > Maybe we too can put in little snide remarks about MySQL. If someone comes up with a simple and objective comparison (preferably with the nice color pictures mentioned previously :) and it's professional looking (no childish slams, etc) I'll be happy to put it on the website. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo atPop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, mlw wrote: > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > > Look at this: (top one) > > > > http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html > > > > Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to > > see if there's been a real speed improvement?? > > > > Chris > > These guys are just A$%$%holes. We have to come up with a benchmark which shows > the the difference between a stupid little file-locking single user toy, and a > real tansactional system. > > Maybe we too can put in little snide remarks about MySQL. Now, let's be a bit sensible, here. MySQL is a great product, if you want a single-user SQL interface to flat files. It is blazingly fast when it comes to retrieving information in an environment where there is little or no data change. We all know the strenghts of postgresql. It is a fully-featured transactional database. MySQL is not, but it is neither stupid, nor a toy. It has its purposes, as does postgresql. Ola -- Ola Sundell ola@miranda.org - olas@wiw.org - ola.sundell@personalchemistry.com http://miranda.org/~ola
On Mié 13 Feb 2002 09:57, Ola Sundell wrote: > On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, mlw wrote: > > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > Look at this: (top one) > > > > > > http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html > > > > > > Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 > > > to see if there's been a real speed improvement?? > > > > > > Chris > > > > These guys are just A$%$%holes. We have to come up with a benchmark which > > shows the the difference between a stupid little file-locking single user > > toy, and a real tansactional system. > > > > Maybe we too can put in little snide remarks about MySQL. > > Now, let's be a bit sensible, here. MySQL is a great product, if you want > a single-user SQL interface to flat files. It is blazingly fast when it > comes to retrieving information in an environment where there is little or > no data change. > > We all know the strenghts of postgresql. It is a fully-featured > transactional database. MySQL is not, but it is neither stupid, nor a > toy. It has its purposes, as does postgresql. What you say is true, but in that case, they shouldn't make benchmarks comparing the two. Saludos... :-) -- Porqué usar una base de datos relacional cualquiera, si podés usar PostgreSQL? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Martín Marqués | mmarques@unl.edu.ar Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telematica Universidad Nacional del Litoral -----------------------------------------------------------------
Vince Vielhaber wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, mlw wrote: > > > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > > > > Look at this: (top one) > > > > > > http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html > > > > > > Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to > > > see if there's been a real speed improvement?? > > > > > > Chris > > > > These guys are just A$%$%holes. We have to come up with a benchmark which shows > > the the difference between a stupid little file-locking single user toy, and a > > real tansactional system. > > > > Maybe we too can put in little snide remarks about MySQL. > > If someone comes up with a simple and objective comparison (preferably > with the nice color pictures mentioned previously :) and it's professional > looking (no childish slams, etc) I'll be happy to put it on the website. Has anyone ported "pgbench" to MySQL? That would be the perfect tool to show the differences. Tom even has some scripts to make charts from it.
Ola Sundell wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, mlw wrote: > > > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > > > > Look at this: (top one) > > > > > > http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html > > > > > > Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to > > > see if there's been a real speed improvement?? > > > > > > Chris > > > > These guys are just A$%$%holes. We have to come up with a benchmark which shows > > the the difference between a stupid little file-locking single user toy, and a > > real tansactional system. > > > > Maybe we too can put in little snide remarks about MySQL. > > Now, let's be a bit sensible, here. MySQL is a great product, if you want > a single-user SQL interface to flat files. It is blazingly fast when it > comes to retrieving information in an environment where there is little or > no data change. The snide remarks on the page about things not working was a bit much. I was ticked off. On a more serious note, MySQL isn't even really SQL. It supports a lot of the syntax, but none of the intentions. Things like sub-selects are vital to being able to model a problem. Transactions are vital to predictable behavior. High concurrency is vital to "real" performance. I have said it at least a hundred times before, I have never been able to finish a project started in MySQL. I always come across something that the database *must* do, but MySQL can't. It is clear that anyone who runs a single user benchmark against a database server capable of multiple connections is not testing their system in its intended mode of use. They are resorting to the worst sort of microsoftian benchmark FUD. > > We all know the strenghts of postgresql. It is a fully-featured > transactional database. MySQL is not, but it is neither stupid, nor a > toy. It has its purposes, as does postgresql. What purpose does MySQL fit? It isn't very good at doing the sorts of things SQL is supposed to do and there are faster database libraries (ala Berkeley DB). What would be the point of using MySQL for anything?
This comes up about once every 6 months. Please take it off HACKERS to ADVOCACY (do we have such a thing?), or some such. Various members of the PostgreSQL community have tried to work with the MySQL people in the past to address 'issues' with their 'benchmark': it never works out. Ross On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 08:41:50AM -0500, mlw wrote: > Ola Sundell wrote: > > > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, mlw wrote: > > > > > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > > > > > > Look at this: (top one) > > > > > > > > http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html > > > > > > > > Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to > > > > see if there's been a real speed improvement?? > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > These guys are just A$%$%holes. We have to come up with a benchmark which shows > > > the the difference between a stupid little file-locking single user toy, and a > > > real tansactional system. > > > > > > Maybe we too can put in little snide remarks about MySQL. > > > > Now, let's be a bit sensible, here. MySQL is a great product, if you want > > a single-user SQL interface to flat files. It is blazingly fast when it > > comes to retrieving information in an environment where there is little or > > no data change. > > The snide remarks on the page about things not working was a bit much. I was > ticked off. On a more serious note, MySQL isn't even really SQL. It supports a > lot of the syntax, but none of the intentions. Things like sub-selects are > vital to being able to model a problem. Transactions are vital to predictable > behavior. High concurrency is vital to "real" performance. > > I have said it at least a hundred times before, I have never been able to > finish a project started in MySQL. I always come across something that the > database *must* do, but MySQL can't. > > It is clear that anyone who runs a single user benchmark against a database > server capable of multiple connections is not testing their system in its > intended mode of use. They are resorting to the worst sort of microsoftian > benchmark FUD. > > > > > We all know the strenghts of postgresql. It is a fully-featured > > transactional database. MySQL is not, but it is neither stupid, nor a > > toy. It has its purposes, as does postgresql. > > What purpose does MySQL fit? It isn't very good at doing the sorts of things > SQL is supposed to do and there are faster database libraries (ala Berkeley > DB). What would be the point of using MySQL for anything? > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Christopher Kings-Lynne writes: > Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to > see if there's been a real speed improvement?? For anyone looking for a real benchmark, check out the OSDB project (http://osdb.sourceforge.net). It's based on the fairly respected AS3AP benchmark. The drawback is that you can't easily generate the test data, yet. I've been working on that, but I sort of ran out of algebra for a while. For now you can download some test data sets, but note that they're really too small to run the benchmark accurately. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net