I find the benchmark much more interesting in comparing PostgreSQL to
MySQL than Intel to AMD. It might be as biased as other benchmarks
but it shows clearly something that a lot of PostgreSQL user always
thought: MySQL gives up on concurrency ... it just doesn't scale well.
cug
On 9/23/06,
On 23-Sep-06, at 9:00 AM, Guido Neitzer wrote:
I find the benchmark much more interesting in comparing PostgreSQL to
MySQL than Intel to AMD. It might be as biased as other benchmarks
but it shows clearly something that a lot of PostgreSQL user always
thought: MySQL gives up on concurrency ...
On 9/23/06, Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) The database fits entirely in memory, so this is really only
testing CPU, not I/O which should be taken into account IMO
I don't think this really is a reason that MySQL broke down on ten or
more concurrent connections. The RAM might be, but
On 23-Sep-06, at 9:49 AM, Guido Neitzer wrote:
On 9/23/06, Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) The database fits entirely in memory, so this is really only
testing CPU, not I/O which should be taken into account IMO
I don't think this really is a reason that MySQL broke down on ten or
A colleague pointed me to this site tomorrow:
http://tweakers.net/reviews/642/13
I can't read the language, so can't get a grip on what exactly the
benchmark was about.
Their diagrams show `Request per seconds'. What should that mean? How
many connections PG accepted per second? So they
Try the translation ;)
http://tweakers.net/reviews/646/13
On 22-9-2006 10:32 Hannes Dorbath wrote:
A colleague pointed me to this site tomorrow:
http://tweakers.net/reviews/642/13
I can't read the language, so can't get a grip on what exactly the
benchmark was about.
Their diagrams show
Hello Hannes,
The text above the pictures on page 13. Translated in my crappy english.
The confrontation between the Opteron and Woodcrest was inevitable in
this article, but who can add 1 and 1 should have known from the
previous two pages that it doesn't look that good for AMD . Under loads
On Sep 22, 2006, at 4:58 AM, nicky wrote:
till 100 simultaneous visitors, the Xeon performs 24% better with
MSQL 4.1.20, 30% better in MySQL 5.0.20a and 37% better in
PostgreSQL 8.2-dev. In short, the Socket F Opteron doesn't stand a
chance, although the Woodcrest scales better and has
On 22-9-2006 22:34 Vivek Khera wrote:
so you think AMD is just sitting around twiddling their thumbs and
saying well, time to give up since Intel is faster today. no. there
will be back-and forth between these two vendors to our benefit. I
would expect next-gen AMD chips to be faster than
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:50:47PM +0200, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
If you're an AMD-fan, by all means, buy their products, those processors
are indeed fast and you can build decent servers with them. But don't
rule out Intel, just because with previous processors they were the
slower
10 matches
Mail list logo
