X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (developer.postgresql.org [64.117.224.193]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0512DB439E5 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:33:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (svr1.postgresql.org [64.117.224.193]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30988-09 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:32:55 -0300 (ADT) Received: from www.postgresql.com (www.postgresql.com [64.117.225.209]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ACFAB43A3D for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:31:10 -0300 (ADT) Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls2.std.com [199.172.62.104]) by www.postgresql.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DAACCF7694 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:15:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from trouble (pool-151-203-213-193.bos.east.verizon.net [151.203.213.193]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with SMTP id h67IEkx8028066; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:14:50 -0400 From: "Brian Tarbox" To: "scott.marlowe" , "Brian Tarbox" Cc: , "Rafal Kedziorski" , Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:16:16 -0400 Message-ID: <000d01c344b3$db2add00$01000001@trouble> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200307/138 X-Sequence-Number: 2431 Oddly enough, the particular application in question will have an extremely small user base...perhaps a few simultainous users at most. As to the testing, I neglected to say early in this thread that my manager instructed me _not_ to do further performance testing...so as a good consultant I complied. I'm not going to touch if that was a smart instruction to give :-) Brian -----Original Message----- From: scott.marlowe [mailto:scott.marlowe@ihs.com] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 1:35 PM To: Brian Tarbox Cc: michael.mattox@verideon.com; Rafal Kedziorski; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL vs. MySQL On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Brian Tarbox wrote: > I'm actually leaving this list but I can answer this question. Our results > were with a single user and we were running Inodb. We were running on > RedHat 8.0 / 9.0 with vanilla linux settings. Hi Brian, I just wanted to add that if you aren't testing your setup for multiple users, you are doing yourself a disservice. The performance of your app with one user is somewhat interesting, the performance of the system with a dozen or a hundred users is of paramount importance. A server that dies under heavy parallel load is useless, no matter how fast it ran when tested for one user. Conversely, one would prefer a server that was a little slow for single users but can hold up under load. When I first built my test box a few years ago, I tested postgresql / apache / php at 100 or more parallel users. That's where things start getting ugly, and you've got to test for it now, before you commit to a platform. Postgresql is designed to work on anything out of the box, which means it's not optimized for high performance, but for running on old Sparc 2s with 128 meg of ram. If you're going to test it against MySQL, be fair to yourself and performance tune them both before testing, they're performance on vanilla linux with vanilla configuration tuning teachs you little about how they'll behave in production on heavy iron. Good luck on your testing, and please, don't quit testing at the first sign one or the other is faster, be throrough and complete, including heavy parallel load testing with reads AND writes. Know the point at which each system begins to fail / become unresponsive, and how they behave in overload.