Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL?

From: Leon <leon(at)udmnet(dot)ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL?
Date: 1999-09-20 13:50:12
Message-ID: 37E63B94.103BDE68@udmnet.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > MySQL: 0.498u 0.150s 0:02.50 25.6% 10+1652k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> > PgSQL: 0.494u 0.061s 0:19.78 2.7% 10+1532k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> > From the 'time' numbers, MySQL is running ~17sec faster, but uses up 23%
> > more CPU to do this...so where is our slowdown?
>
> It's gotta be going into I/O, obviously. (I hate profilers that can't
> count disk accesses...) My guess is that the index scans are losing
> because they wind up touching too many disk pages. You show
>

On that particular machine that can be verified easily, I hope.
(there seems to be enough RAM). You can simply issue 10 to 100 such
queries in a row. Hopefully after the first query all needed info
will be in a disk cache, so the rest queries will not draw info from
disk. That will be a clean experiment.

--
Leon.
-------
He knows he'll never have to answer for any of his theories actually
being put to test. If they were, they would be contaminated by reality.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-09-20 13:55:19 Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach?
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-09-20 13:44:09 Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach?