From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | testman1316 <danilo(dot)ramirez(at)hmhco(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostrgeSQL vs oracle doing 1 million sqrts am I doing it wrong? |
Date: | 2014-08-05 10:16:32 |
Message-ID: | CABRT9RATqyQnptjCNKOASS7Nm1k==eJYxcmNJLUKP7kp-Xn03A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 11:48 PM, testman1316 <danilo(dot)ramirez(at)hmhco(dot)com> wrote:
> In both we ran code that did 1 million square roots (from 1 to 1 mill). Then
> did the same but within an If..Then statement.
> Note: once we started running queries on the exact same data in Oracle and
> PostgreSQL we saw a similar pattern. On basic queries little difference, but
> as they started to get more and more complex Oracle was around 3-5 faster.
Looks like from the test cases you posted, you're not actually
benchmarking any *queries*, you're comparing the speeds of the
procedural languages. And yes, PL/pgSQL is known to be a farily slow
language.
If you want fair benchmark results, you should instead concentrate on
what databases are supposed to do: store and retrieve data; finding
the most optimal way to execute complicated SQL queries. In most
setups, that's where the majority of database processor time is spent,
not procedure code.
Regards,
Marti
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2014-08-05 10:35:45 | Patch to support SEMI and ANTI join removal |
Previous Message | Gabriele Bartolini | 2014-08-05 10:10:11 | Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup |