To: "CN" <cnliou9@fastmail.fm>
Cc: pgsql-benchmarks@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Benchmarks of MySQL, MaxDB, PostgreSQL, and Oracle 
In-reply-to: <1111660508.23316.230311438@webmail.messagingengine.com> 
References: <1111660508.23316.230311438@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "CN" <cnliou9@fastmail.fm>
	message dated "Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:35:08 +0800"
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:26:07 -0500
Message-ID: <26823.1111677967@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

"CN" <cnliou9@fastmail.fm> writes:
> A person compared the performances of MySQL, MaxDB, PostgreSQL, and
> Oracle, and posted his result at
> http://laser.dyndns.pgsqldb.com/index.php?rid=1923&S=aeac79693ab902121ccb13957fb65d8c&t=msg&th=5893&start=0&logoff=1

Ah, your good old basic MySQL-friendly benchmark design: let's test one
client doing one trivial query type over and over, so we can ignore all
those nasty concurrency issues.  Oh, and let's not say anything about
configuration, so no one can tell if the various DBs have been set up
reasonably.

Postgres would probably show up better on platforms other than Windows;
the native Windows port is brand new and hasn't been shaken out at all
as far as performance goes.  In particular, assuming that this was run
with the default fsync mode, it probably suffers badly from the fsync-
is-writethrough-on-Windows problem that was just recently fixed.

> Should we ignore all of them?

Pretty much.  Any "benchmark" testing only one query type, and as poorly
documented as this, is not really worth the trouble to respond to
anyway.

(If I could read Chinese maybe I'd not think it was so poorly
documented, but there surely isn't a lot of info on that page
about the test conditions.)

			regards, tom lane