Thread

1. PostgreSQL Benchmarks

   Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> — 2003-02-11T14:26:08Z

   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
   
   *sigh*
   
   Chris
   
   
   
   

2. Re: PostgreSQL Benchmarks

   Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> — 2003-02-11T14:36:40Z

   -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
   Hash: SHA1
   
   
   > 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
   
   Is there anyone here that can contact them and get more details about 
   how the test was run? Even on Windows, I don't beleive that Postgres 
   should be quite as slow as indicated. I'd rather someone more familiar 
   with Windows than I take a stab at it.
   
   - --
   Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
   PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200302110934
   
   -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
   Comment: http://www.turnstep.com/pgp.html
   
   iD8DBQE+SQoFvJuQZxSWSsgRAi5jAJ4li+qUDlxzM1r0XLZAjDlW1oA1ZwCgiOpT
   0LgCKy9W5vG0nNcYWNJGkPM=
   =Rrw5
   -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
   
   
   

3. Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

   Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net> — 2003-02-11T14:39:38Z

   On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 08:26, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
   > 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
   > 
   > *sigh*
   
   How much of the performance difference is from the RDBMS, from the
   middleware, and from the quality of implementation in the middleware.
   
   While I'm not surprised that the the cygwin version of PostgreSQL is
   slow, those results don't tell me anything about the quality of the
   middleware interface between PHP and PostgreSQL.  Does anyone know if we
   can rule out some of the performance loss by pinning it to bad
   middleware implementation for PostgreSQL?
   
   
   Regards,
   
   -- 
   Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net>
   Copeland Computer Consulting
   
   
   

4. Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

   Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com> — 2003-02-13T09:09:14Z

   Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
   > 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
   > 
   > *sigh*
   
   Not fair, perhaps.
   
   But if you look, you'll see that *Cygwin* PostgreSQL beat most
   everything on the Win32 platform except MySQL and Oracle with PL/SQL.
   Read further and you'll see that Cygwin PostgreSQL came *really* close
   (within 10% or something) to MS-SQL.
   
   Considering that they weren't even running a native version of
   PostgreSQL, I think the results were surprisingly *good*.
   
   
   But yes, we really do want to be the fastest.  :-)
   
   
   -- 
   Kevin Brown					      kevin@sysexperts.com
   
   

5. Re: PostgreSQL Benchmarks

   Ketrien Saihr-Kenchedra <ksaihr@error404.nls.net> — 2003-02-13T20:23:15Z

   On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 09:26, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
   > 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
   > *sigh*
   
   There's two fundamental flaws with this test. Well, more than that.
   First off, if you read the hardware specs, you know that this guy is,
   well, either ignorant, or flat out lying. There is no question of that -
   I'm familiar with the Sun E450, and it's slowest available module is the
   300MHz UltraSPARC with I believe 1MB eCache. You cannot equip an E450
   with two 167MHz (NOT 166MHz) processors.
   Secondly, it's clear that something was doctored in the results or the
   queries, which was not mentioned, by the difference between MySQL and
   Oracle 8.1.7 on the purportedly 'same' Windows workstation, is absurdly
   slow compared to MySQL. Figures are incomplete, proper details of the
   systems are not provided, etcetera.
   Point blank, this benchmark is clearly forged or doctored, and
   completely discredits itself with a total lack of disclosure. I think it
   is more important to simply point this out, than to argue Pg is better
   than this that or the other, quite frankly. 
   -- 
   -- Ketrien Saihr-Kenchedra <ksaihr@error404.nls.net>
      Lead Developer and Project Mangler, LiveJournal/PostgreSQL
      <angry> this artist has some anger management problems
      <ket> angry - look who's talking.