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
>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 And why is the highly advocated transaction capable MySQL 4 not tested? That's the problem, for every performance test they choose ISAM tables, and when transactions are mentioned it's said "MySQL has transactions". But why no benchmarks? Regards, Mario Weilguni
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
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 08:31, Mario Weilguni 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 > > And why is the highly advocated transaction capable MySQL 4 not tested? > That's the problem, for every performance test they choose ISAM tables, and > when transactions are mentioned it's said "MySQL has transactions". But why > no benchmarks? > Insert Statement Not using bind variables (MySQL and Oracle): $DB->BeginTrans(); Using bind variables: $DB->BeginTrans(); PL/SQL Insert Benchmark Appears to not initiate a transaction. I'm assuming this is because it's implicitly within a transaction? Oddly enough, I am seeing explicit commits here. It appears that the benchmarks are attempting to use transactions, however, I have no idea if MySQL's HEAP supports them. For all I know, transactions are being silently ignored. Regards, -- Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net> Copeland Computer Consulting
On Tuesday 11 Feb 2003 8:01 pm, Mario Weilguni 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 > > And why is the highly advocated transaction capable MySQL 4 not tested? > That's the problem, for every performance test they choose ISAM tables, and > when transactions are mentioned it's said "MySQL has transactions". But why > no benchmarks? I did benchmark mysql/postgresql/oracle sometime back. Mysql with transaction is 90% as fast as postgresql. But it dies down with increased number of users no matter how much resources you throw at it. Oracle is 130% of postgresql. This was postgresql 7.2.x series so things have changed for sure, but you got the idea, right? Shridhar
There's "The Open Source Database Benchmark", http://osdb.sourceforge.net/. Anyone tried to use it? __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
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