Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-13 Thread Kevin Brown
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database > benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on > Win32 isn't really fair: > > http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance > > *sigh* Not fair, perhaps. But i

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-11 Thread Greg Copeland
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 08:31, Mario Weilguni wrote: > >Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database > >benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on > >Win32 isn't really fair: > > >http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance > > And why i

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-11 Thread Greg Copeland
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 08:26, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database > benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on > Win32 isn't really fair: > > http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance > > *sig

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

2003-02-11 Thread Mario Weilguni
>Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database >benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on >Win32 isn't really fair: >http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance And why is the highly advocated transaction capable MySQL 4 not tested? Th