From: | "Mario Weilguni" <mario(dot)weilguni(at)icomedias(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks |
Date: | 2003-02-11 14:31:06 |
Message-ID: | 4D618F6493CE064A844A5D496733D667039311@freedom.icomedias.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
>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?
That's the problem, for every performance test they choose ISAM tables, and
when transactions are mentioned it's said "MySQL has transactions". But why
no benchmarks?
Regards,
Mario Weilguni
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | greg | 2003-02-11 14:36:40 | Re: PostgreSQL Benchmarks |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-11 14:26:08 | PostgreSQL Benchmarks |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | greg | 2003-02-11 14:36:40 | Re: PostgreSQL Benchmarks |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-11 14:26:08 | PostgreSQL Benchmarks |