Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>  writes:
>>>> MySQL: 0.498u 0.150s 0:02.50 25.6%     10+1652k 0+0io 0pf+0w
>>>> PgSQL: 0.494u 0.061s 0:19.78 2.7%      10+1532k 0+0io 0pf+0w
>
>> No --- if he were, it'd be all CPU time, not 2.7% CPU usage.
>
>Er, wait a second.  Are we measuring backend-process runtime here,
>or is that the result of 'time' applied to a *client* ?

Yeah, that would explain a lot.  When I first saw the numbers, I was so
excited because they showed that PostgreSQL is *faster* than MySQL (with
more memory, and better I/O).

That didn't make any sense, though.  MySQL is faster than every real DBMS,
because it doesn't have transactions, triggers, locking, or any other sort
of useful features to slow it down.

The question should always be, is PostgreSQL faster than Oracle, Informix,
or Sybase?

	-Michael


Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:44:55 +0800 (CST)
Michael Robinson <robinson@netrinsics.com>
Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL?
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>  writes:
> >>>> MySQL: 0.498u 0.150s 0:02.50 25.6%     10+1652k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> >>>> PgSQL: 0.494u 0.061s 0:19.78 2.7%      10+1532k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> >
> >> No --- if he were, it'd be all CPU time, not 2.7% CPU usage.
> >
> >Er, wait a second.  Are we measuring backend-process runtime here,
> >or is that the result of 'time' applied to a *client* ?
> 
> Yeah, that would explain a lot.  When I first saw the numbers, I was so
> excited because they showed that PostgreSQL is *faster* than MySQL (with
> more memory, and better I/O).
> 
> That didn't make any sense, though.  MySQL is faster than every real DBMS,
> because it doesn't have transactions, triggers, locking, or any other sort
> of useful features to slow it down.
> 
> The question should always be, is PostgreSQL faster than Oracle, Informix,
> or Sybase?

I am told we are the same as Ingres, and slower than Oracle with no -F,
and faster than Oracle with -F.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Mon, 20 Sep 1999 00:06:36 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL?
> 
> > I am told we are the same as Ingres, and slower than Oracle with no -F,
> > and faster than Oracle with -F.
> 
> What is "-F"?
> 

-F is postgres option for no-fsync.
-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:27:10 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL?
In article <199909201327.JAA18590@candle.pha.pa.us>,
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
>> 
>> > I am told we are the same as Ingres, and slower than Oracle with no -F,
>> > and faster than Oracle with -F.
>> 
>> What is "-F"?
>> 
>
>-F is postgres option for no-fsync.

Does that matter on read-only selects?

Might some future version of postgresql have an option to turn
off transaction support to match mysql speed for the situations
where that is more important than the ability to roll back?

  Les Mikesell
   les@mcs.com

20 Sep 1999 21:59:26 -0500
les@Mars.mcs.net (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL?

> I am told we are the same as Ingres, and slower than Oracle with no -F,
> and faster than Oracle with -F.

What is "-F"?

-- 
Chris Bitmead
mailto:chris@tech.com.au

Sat, 01 Jan 2000 10:42:56 +1100
Chris Bitmead <chris@tech.com.au>
Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL?