Message-ID: <026d01c34248$83f313d0$0564a8c0@shock>
From: "Bjoern Metzdorf" <bm@turtle-entertainment.de>
To: "Postgresql Performance" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
References: <000301c34246$d3aadcc0$01000001@trouble>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL 
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:22:43 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> I'm not saying (and never did say) that postgres could not be fast.
> All I ever said was that with the same minimal effort applied to both
> DBs, postgres was slower.

Afaik, your original posting said postgresql was 3 times slower than mysql
and that you are going to leave this list now. This implied that you have
made your decision between postgresql and mysql, taking mysql because it is
faster.

Now you say your testing setup has minimal effort applied. Well, it is not
very surprising that mysql is faster in standard configurations. As Shridhar
pointed out, postgresql has very conservative default values, so that it
starts on nearly every machine.

If I was your client and gave you the task to choose a suitable database for
my application and you evaluated suitable databases this way, then something
is seriously wrong with your work.

Regards,
Bjoern