On 7 Oct 2002 at 10:30, Tom Lane wrote: > "Shridhar Daithankar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > MySQL 3.23.52 with innodb transaction support: > > > 4 concurrent queries :- 257.36 ms > > 40 concurrent queries :- 35.12 ms > > > Postgresql 7.2.2 > > > 4 concurrent queries :- 257.43 ms > > 40 concurrent queries :- 41.16 ms > > I find this pretty fishy. The extreme similarity of the 4-client > numbers seems improbable, from what I know of the two databases. > I suspect your numbers are mostly measuring some non-database-related > overhead --- communications overhead, maybe?
I don't know but three numbers, postgresql/mysql/oracle all are 25x.xx ms. The clients were on same machie as of server. So no real area to point at.. > > > Only worry is database size. Postgresql is 111GB v/s 87 GB for mysql. All > > numbers include indexes. This is really going to be a problem when things are > > deployed. Any idea how can it be taken down? > > 7.3 should be a little bit better because of Manfred's work on reducing > tuple header size --- if you create your tables WITHOUT OIDS, you should > save 8 bytes per row compared to earlier releases. Got it.. Bye Shridhar -- Sweater, n.: A garment worn by a child when its mother feels chilly. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
