Message-ID: <032f01c3427b$031479b0$0564a8c0@shock>
From: "Bjoern Metzdorf" <bm@turtle-entertainment.de>
To: "Brian Tarbox" <btarbox@theworld.com>,
	"Postgresql Performance" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
References: <002301c34271$30afc870$01000001@trouble>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL 
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 00:24:18 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>> 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.
>
> Well, that shows what you get for making implications.  The client is
> sticking with postgres and we are coding around the issue in other
> ways.

As many other guys here pointed out, there are numerous ways to tune
postgresql for maximum performance. If you are willing to share more
information about your particular project, we might be able to help you out
and optimize your application, without the need to code around the issue as
much as you may be doing right now.
Even if it is not possible for you to share enough information, there are a
lot of places where you can read about performance tuning (if not in the
docs then in the archives).

>> 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.
>>
> Glad to see you're not getting personal with this. Ad hominin attacks
> are for folks with no better answers.

Yep, you're right. Sorry for that, I didn't mean to get personal. I was
somehow irritated that you come here, post your database comparison and want
to leave right afterwards, without going into detail (what should be the
case normally).

Again our offer: Post (possibly obfuscated) schema information, and we will
certainly be able to help you with performance tuning.

Regards,
Bjoern