Look at this: (top one)

http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html

Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to
see if there's been a real speed improvement??

Chris


Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:40:12 +0800
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
benchmarking postgres
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> 
> Look at this: (top one)
> 
> http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html
> 
> Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to
> see if there's been a real speed improvement??
> 
> Chris

These guys are just A$%$%holes. We have to come up with a benchmark which shows
the the difference between a stupid little file-locking single user toy, and a
real tansactional system.

Maybe we too can put in little snide remarks about MySQL.

Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:11:28 -0500
mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>
Re: benchmarking postgres
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, mlw wrote:

> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >
> > Look at this: (top one)
> >
> > http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html
> >
> > Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to
> > see if there's been a real speed improvement??
> >
> > Chris
>
> These guys are just A$%$%holes. We have to come up with a benchmark which shows
> the the difference between a stupid little file-locking single user toy, and a
> real tansactional system.
>
> Maybe we too can put in little snide remarks about MySQL.

If someone comes up with a simple and objective comparison (preferably
with the nice color pictures mentioned previously :) and it's professional
looking (no childish slams, etc) I'll be happy to put it on the website.

Vince.
-- 
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH    email: vev@michvhf.com    http://www.pop4.net
         56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
        Online Campground Directory    http://www.camping-usa.com
       Online Giftshop Superstore    http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================




Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:54:17 -0500 (EST)
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>
Re: benchmarking postgres
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, mlw wrote:

> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > 
> > Look at this: (top one)
> > 
> > http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html
> > 
> > Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to
> > see if there's been a real speed improvement??
> > 
> > Chris
> 
> These guys are just A$%$%holes. We have to come up with a benchmark which shows
> the the difference between a stupid little file-locking single user toy, and a
> real tansactional system.
> 
> Maybe we too can put in little snide remarks about MySQL.

Now, let's be a bit sensible, here. MySQL is a great product, if you want
a single-user SQL interface to flat files. It is blazingly fast when it
comes to retrieving information in an environment where there is little or
no data change.

We all know the strenghts of postgresql. It is a fully-featured
transactional database. MySQL is not, but it is neither stupid, nor a
toy. It has its purposes, as does postgresql.

Ola

-- 
Ola Sundell
ola@miranda.org - olas@wiw.org - ola.sundell@personalchemistry.com
http://miranda.org/~ola


Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:57:41 -0500 (EST)
Ola Sundell <ola@miranda.org>
Re: benchmarking postgres
On Miï¿½ 13 Feb 2002 09:57, Ola Sundell wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, mlw wrote:
> > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > Look at this: (top one)
> > >
> > > http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html
> > >
> > > Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2
> > > to see if there's been a real speed improvement??
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > These guys are just A$%$%holes. We have to come up with a benchmark which
> > shows the the difference between a stupid little file-locking single user
> > toy, and a real tansactional system.
> >
> > Maybe we too can put in little snide remarks about MySQL.
>
> Now, let's be a bit sensible, here. MySQL is a great product, if you want
> a single-user SQL interface to flat files. It is blazingly fast when it
> comes to retrieving information in an environment where there is little or
> no data change.
>
> We all know the strenghts of postgresql. It is a fully-featured
> transactional database. MySQL is not, but it is neither stupid, nor a
> toy. It has its purposes, as does postgresql.

What you say is true, but in that case, they shouldn't make benchmarks 
comparing the two.

Saludos... :-)

-- 
Porquï¿½ usar una base de datos relacional cualquiera,
si podï¿½s usar PostgreSQL?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martï¿½n Marquï¿½s                  |        mmarques@unl.edu.ar
Programador, Administrador, DBA |       Centro de Telematica
                       Universidad Nacional
                            del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:09:20 -0300
=?iso-8859-1?q?Mart=EDn=20Marqu=E9s?= <martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar>
Re: benchmarking postgres
Ola Sundell wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, mlw wrote:
> 
> > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > >
> > > Look at this: (top one)
> > >
> > > http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html
> > >
> > > Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to
> > > see if there's been a real speed improvement??
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > These guys are just A$%$%holes. We have to come up with a benchmark which shows
> > the the difference between a stupid little file-locking single user toy, and a
> > real tansactional system.
> >
> > Maybe we too can put in little snide remarks about MySQL.
> 
> Now, let's be a bit sensible, here. MySQL is a great product, if you want
> a single-user SQL interface to flat files. It is blazingly fast when it
> comes to retrieving information in an environment where there is little or
> no data change.

The snide remarks on the page about things not working was a bit much. I was
ticked off. On a more serious note, MySQL isn't even really SQL. It supports a
lot of the syntax, but none of the intentions. Things like sub-selects are
vital to being able to model a problem. Transactions are vital to predictable
behavior. High concurrency is vital to "real" performance.

I have said it at least a hundred times before, I have never been able to
finish a project started in MySQL. I always come across something that the
database *must* do, but MySQL can't.

It is clear that anyone who runs a single user benchmark against a database
server capable of multiple connections is not testing their system in its
intended mode of use. They are resorting to the worst sort of microsoftian
benchmark FUD.

> 
> We all know the strenghts of postgresql. It is a fully-featured
> transactional database. MySQL is not, but it is neither stupid, nor a
> toy. It has its purposes, as does postgresql.

What purpose does MySQL fit? It isn't very good at doing the sorts of things
SQL is supposed to do and there are faster database libraries (ala Berkeley
DB). What would be the point of using MySQL for anything?

Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:41:50 -0500
mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>
Re: benchmarking postgres
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, mlw wrote:
> 
> > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > >
> > > Look at this: (top one)
> > >
> > > http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html
> > >
> > > Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to
> > > see if there's been a real speed improvement??
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > These guys are just A$%$%holes. We have to come up with a benchmark which shows
> > the the difference between a stupid little file-locking single user toy, and a
> > real tansactional system.
> >
> > Maybe we too can put in little snide remarks about MySQL.
> 
> If someone comes up with a simple and objective comparison (preferably
> with the nice color pictures mentioned previously :) and it's professional
> looking (no childish slams, etc) I'll be happy to put it on the website.

Has anyone ported "pgbench" to MySQL? That would be the perfect tool to show
the differences. Tom even has some scripts to make charts from it.

Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:44:10 -0500
mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>
Re: benchmarking postgres
This comes up about once every 6 months. Please take it off HACKERS to
ADVOCACY (do we have such a thing?), or some such. Various members of
the PostgreSQL community have tried to work with the MySQL people in
the past to address 'issues' with their 'benchmark': it never works out.

Ross

On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 08:41:50AM -0500, mlw wrote:
> Ola Sundell wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, mlw wrote:
> > 
> > > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Look at this: (top one)
> > > >
> > > > http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to
> > > > see if there's been a real speed improvement??
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > >
> > > These guys are just A$%$%holes. We have to come up with a benchmark which shows
> > > the the difference between a stupid little file-locking single user toy, and a
> > > real tansactional system.
> > >
> > > Maybe we too can put in little snide remarks about MySQL.
> > 
> > Now, let's be a bit sensible, here. MySQL is a great product, if you want
> > a single-user SQL interface to flat files. It is blazingly fast when it
> > comes to retrieving information in an environment where there is little or
> > no data change.
> 
> The snide remarks on the page about things not working was a bit much. I was
> ticked off. On a more serious note, MySQL isn't even really SQL. It supports a
> lot of the syntax, but none of the intentions. Things like sub-selects are
> vital to being able to model a problem. Transactions are vital to predictable
> behavior. High concurrency is vital to "real" performance.
> 
> I have said it at least a hundred times before, I have never been able to
> finish a project started in MySQL. I always come across something that the
> database *must* do, but MySQL can't.
> 
> It is clear that anyone who runs a single user benchmark against a database
> server capable of multiple connections is not testing their system in its
> intended mode of use. They are resorting to the worst sort of microsoftian
> benchmark FUD.
> 
> > 
> > We all know the strenghts of postgresql. It is a fully-featured
> > transactional database. MySQL is not, but it is neither stupid, nor a
> > toy. It has its purposes, as does postgresql.
> 
> What purpose does MySQL fit? It isn't very good at doing the sorts of things
> SQL is supposed to do and there are faster database libraries (ala Berkeley
> DB). What would be the point of using MySQL for anything?
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> 
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:23:00 -0600
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@rice.edu>
Re: benchmarking postgres
Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:

> Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to
> see if there's been a real speed improvement??

For anyone looking for a real benchmark, check out the OSDB project
(http://osdb.sourceforge.net).  It's based on the fairly respected AS3AP
benchmark.  The drawback is that you can't easily generate the test data,
yet.  I've been working on that, but I sort of ran out of algebra for a
while.  For now you can download some test data sets, but note that
they're really too small to run the benchmark accurately.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net


Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:50:52 -0500 (EST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: benchmarking postgres