| From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marshall Spight <marshall(at)meetstheeye(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2002-08-02 18:57:46 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0208021257050.28034-100000@css120.ihs.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Marshall Spight wrote:
> "Curt Sampson" <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> wrote in message news:Pine(dot)NEB(dot)4(dot)44(dot)0207131908540(dot)454-100000(at)angelic(dot)cynic(dot)net(dot)(dot)(dot)
> >
> > Well, yeah, but it's really time to kill, properly, this idea that
> > postgres is always slower than mysql. I'm reasonably convinced that
> > under fairly heavy OLTP loads with some large queries going, MySQL would
> > grind to a halt at loads much less than postgres can handle.
>
> We did a bunch of benchmarking at work, using real datasets from
> our application, as well as synthetic benchmarks. A very wide
> variety of db operations were measured, using postgres, and mysql
> with innodb and myisam tables.
>
> Although I am a huge postgres fan, and will not be switching myself,
> I have to admit that as far as a race goes, mysql is the clear winner.
> In our tests, it was drastically faster than postgres. It really bummed
> me out.
Just wondering what version of postgresql you were running, and how much
optimization was done to the postgresql.conf file before testing, as the
default is really quite lowest common denominator.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2002-08-02 18:59:32 | custom type similar to varchar(#) |
| Previous Message | Fred Vos | 2002-08-02 18:43:43 | Re: MySQL or Postgres ? |