From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle |
Date: | 2008-12-14 19:33:43 |
Message-ID: | 49455F97.6050105@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Jonah,
> Hmm... I wonder how scientific his benchmarking is and how well his
> Oracle system was tuned. Because I've done quite a few performance
> comparisons between Postgres 8.3 and 8.4-dev against a well-tuned
> Oracle8i instance on Linux, and 8i (from 1999) beats the latest
> versions of Postgres quite handily on the same hardware.
What tests are you running? There are certainly things,
performance-wise, which Oracle does better than us. There are also
things they do worse.
I'll point out that, the last time we had public comparables
head-to-head, with *Oracle* doing Oracle's tuning on SpecJAppserver,
PostgreSQL was around 90% of Oracle *10* on analogous hardware. In
internal tests at Sun I can't quote directly, that comparison held on
succeeding generations of hardware I wasn't allowed to publish :-(
And I'd match the Sun performance labs' knowledge of Oracle tuning
against yours any day.
Not, on TPC-E on the other hand, Oracle is way ahead of us ... we were
like 50% last I checked, due mostly to the amount of time it takes us to
resolve lock conflicts vs. Oracle. Of course, Microsoft is beating
Oracle by 50%, so Oracle is not the one to match on that benchmark.
--Josh
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | justin | 2008-12-15 01:38:03 | Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2008-12-14 18:06:08 | Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle |