On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 06/25/2012 01:23 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> >> Craig James<cja...@emolecules.com> wrote: >> >>> It claims to be "the world's fastest database." >> >> >>> [link where they boast of 80,000 tps read-only] >> >> >> 20,000 tps? Didn't we hit well over 300,000 tps in read-only >> benchmarks of PostgreSQL with some of the 9.2 performance >> enhancements? > > > It's 20K TPS on something that MySQL will only do 3.5 TPS. The queries must > be much heavier than the ones PostgreSQL can get 200K+ on. We'd have to do > a deeper analysis of the actual queries used to know exactly how much > heavier though. They might be the type MySQL is usually faster than > PostgreSQL on (i.e. ones using simple operations and operators), or they > could be ones where PostgreSQL is usually faster than MySQL (i.e. more > complicated joins). All I can tell you for sure if that they used a query > mix that makes MemSQL look much faster than MySQL.
Considering I can build a pgsql 8.4 machine with 256G RAM and 64 Opteron cores and a handful of SSDs or HW RAID that can do REAL 7k to 8k RW TPS right now for well under $10k, 20k TPS on an in memory database isn't all that impressive. I wonder what numbers pg 9.1/9.2 can / will be able to pull off on such hardare? -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
