On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 09:17 -0500, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: > On March 10, 2005 08:44 am, Walt Reed wrote: > > Now one of our lead engineers has done some performance testing last > > night for our > > app and found MySQL to be 8 to 100 times faster for all but one of our > > operations (combination of ~80% reads, 20% writes on the InnoDB table > > type.) His testing basically increased the load until performance was > > unacceptable. > > I'd *love* to see the particulars of that test. It's been shown time and > time > again that postgres' speed CLOBBERS mysql for anything but the simplest > selects, and that it can handle far more concurrent connections without > slowing down.
This brings back the question of testing methodology. If the tester that posted here only tested sequential queries, I could see MySQL showing faster. A test that would probably show less of a gap is running whatever testing app multiple time simultaneously as it will start showing the ability to handle concurrent users. -- Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
