On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 14:36, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On 9/13/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IIRC, with these settings PG 8.0 seemed to be about half the speed of > > mysql 5.0 w/myisam, which is probably somewhere in the ballpark of the > > truth for tests of this nature, ie, single query stream of fairly simple > > queries. If you try concurrent-update scenarios or something that > > stresses planning ability you may arrive at different results though. > > I have not retested with more recent versions. > > if postgresql uses prepared statements for such queries, it will > roughly tie mysql/myisam in raw query output on this type of load > which also happens to be very easy to prepare...afaik mysql gets zero > performance benefit from preparing statements This is extremely > trivial to test&confirm even on a shell script. [aside: will this > still be the case if peter e's planner changes become reality?] > > another cheater trick benchmarkers do to disparage postgresql is to > not run analyze intentionally. Basically all production postgresql > systems of any size will run analyze on cron. > > another small aside, I caught the sqlite people actually *detuning* > postgresql for performance by turning stats_command_string=on in > postgresql.conf. The way it was portrayed it almost looked like > cheating. I busted them on it (go to > http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=SpeedComparison and look for the > remarks right below the results)
They're running autovacuum, which requires that, doesn't it? I'd rather them be running autovacuum than not vacuuming / analyzing at all. And autovacuum is a pretty realistic setting for most databases (I use it on my production machines.) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
