| From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)i4free(dot)co(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)hub(dot)org, bryan(at)arcamax(dot)com, ned(at)greatbridge(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Great Bridge benchmark results for Postgres, 4 others |
| Date: | 2000-08-15 09:39:42 |
| Message-ID: | 39990FDE.256F42DF@i4free.co.nz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Excellent result ! -
Great to see some benchmarking of Postgresql and the competition....and to see it kick ass !
.... but a cautionary note about test "even handedness" - certain current versions of
"proprietary databases" will exhaust 512MB RAM with 100 users... I know this because I have
performed similar tests of Posgresql
+ "other unspecified databases" myself. It would be interesting to see memory + swap + disk
utilization
profiles of the test machine with the various databases.
To give the show away a bit, against a certian well known "propriety database" I had to enable
"nofsync" to
match its performance ( which invalidates a tpc c benchmark I think - no failsafe...) .
Not to be a negative Elephant about this, the low memory footprint of Postgresql is a great
strength, and should be marketed as such.... !
In a related vein, is it possible that any relevant database parameter settings might be
published to help folk get the best out of their Postgresql systems ? ( apologies if they are
there and I missed them )
Regards
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-08-15 11:22:43 | Re: mod_auth_pgsql |
| Previous Message | Ramses van Pinxteren | 2000-08-15 09:17:16 | mod_auth_pgsql |