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



Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:26:08 +0800 (WST)
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
PostgreSQL Benchmarks

-----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-----


Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:36:40 -0000
greg@turnstep.com
Re: PostgreSQL Benchmarks
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


11 Feb 2003 08:39:38 -0600
Greg Copeland <greg@CopelandConsulting.Net>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks
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

Thu, 13 Feb 2003 01:09:14 -0800
Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks
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.


13 Feb 2003 15:23:15 -0500
Ketrien Saihr-Kenchedra <ksaihr@error404.nls.net>
Re: PostgreSQL Benchmarks