[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Matthew Kennedy wrote:
>
> > I'm on several postgresql mailing lists and couldn't find a recent post
> > from you complaining about 6.5.3 performance problems (not even by an
> > archive search). Your benchmark is worthless until you try postgresql
> > 7.1. There have been two major releases of postgresql since 6.5.x (ie.
> > 7.0 and 7.1) and several minor ones over a total of 2-3 years. It's no
> > secret that they have tremendous performance improvements over 6.5.x. So
> > why did you benchmark 6.5.x?
> >
> > This is a good comparison of MySQL and PostgreSQL 7.0:
> >
> > "Open Source Databases: As The Tables Turn" --
> > http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20001112.php3
> > > We haven't tried this one. We are doing a project on
> > > mysql. Our preliminary assessment is, it's a shocker. They
> > > justify not having commit and rollback!! Makes us think
> > > whether they are even lower end than MS-Access.
> > Again, checkout PostgreSQL 7.1 -- I believe "commit" and "rollback" (as
> > you put it) are available. BTW, I would like to see that comment about
> > MS-Access posted to pgsql-general... I dare ya. :P
> You can scale any of these databases; Oracle, MySQL or
> PostgreSQL, but please research each one thoroughly and tune
> it properly before you do your benchmarking.
I have a different proposal, why don't you do default
installations and avoid tuning any of them? If you're going
to benchmark something, benchmark what people are actually
using.
> And, again, MySQL does support transactions now.
Actually, what they did is they bolted on another database
on the side of MySQL. So if you want transactions, you're
really going to be using the Berkley DB, and MySQL's much
vaunted speed is presumably out the window..
> Such chutzpah for them
> to have promoted an "atomic operations" paradigm for so long
> without supporting transactions! But that discussion is moot
> now.
"Chutzpah" is an interesting way of putting it. I've been thinking
of them as "slimeballs in the busy of conning webkids into
thinking they have a real RDBM product".
(It isn't a moot point, because it's the same people working on
it: human character issues are actually relevant when making
technical decisions.)
> Please be advised that MySQL is threaded and must be tuned
> properly to handle many concurrent users on Linux. See the
> docs at http://www.mysql.com
That's a good idea. They wouldn't lie to you again, would they?
> The author of the PHP Builder
> column did not do his research, so his results for MySQL on
> Linux are way off. Happily, though, even he got some decent
> results from PostgreSQL 7.0.
Hm, Great Bridge ran industry standard benchmarks
of mysql and postgresql, and found that postgresql was
faster even on the read-only tests that are supposed to be
MySql's bread-and-butter. But I think the Mysql guys
said that that was a "tuning" problem also.
