Thread

1. Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

   Mario Weilguni <mario.weilguni@icomedias.com> — 2003-02-11T14:31:06Z

   >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
   
   

2. Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

   Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net> — 2003-02-11T14:47:02Z

   On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 08:31, Mario Weilguni 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
   > 
   > 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?
   > 
   
   
   Insert Statement
   
   Not using bind variables (MySQL and Oracle): 
   $DB->BeginTrans();
   
   
   
   Using bind variables: 
   $DB->BeginTrans();
   
   
   PL/SQL Insert Benchmark
   Appears to not initiate a transaction.  I'm assuming this is because
   it's implicitly within a transaction?  Oddly enough, I am seeing
   explicit commits here.
   
   It appears that the benchmarks are attempting to use transactions,
   however, I have no idea if MySQL's HEAP supports them.  For all I know,
   transactions are being silently ignored.
   
   
   Regards,
   
   -- 
   Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net>
   Copeland Computer Consulting
   
   
   

3. Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

   Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> — 2003-02-12T06:14:54Z

   On Tuesday 11 Feb 2003 8:01 pm, Mario Weilguni 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
   >
   > 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?
   
   I did benchmark mysql/postgresql/oracle sometime back. Mysql with transaction 
   is 90% as fast as postgresql. But it dies down with increased number of users 
   no matter how much resources you throw at it.
   
   Oracle is 130% of postgresql. This was postgresql 7.2.x series so things have 
   changed for sure, but you got the idea, right?
   
    Shridhar
   
   

4. Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks

   ow <oneway_111@yahoo.com> — 2003-02-12T06:31:46Z

   There's "The Open Source Database Benchmark",
   http://osdb.sourceforge.net/.
   
   Anyone tried to use it?
   
   
   
   
   
   __________________________________________________
   Do you Yahoo!?
   Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
   http://shopping.yahoo.com