Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:28:00 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
Message-ID: <20030704142800.GC4592@libertyrms.info>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
References: <200307041823.40101.shridhar_daithankar@nospam.persistent.co.in>
	<01bf01c34235$a4c8aa60$01000001@trouble>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <01bf01c34235$a4c8aa60$01000001@trouble>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:07:46AM -0400, Brian Tarbox wrote:
> 512 mb memory, latest production versions of each database.  By vanilla
> RedHat I mean that I installed RH on a clean system, said install everything
> and did no customization of RH settings.

Does that include no customization of the Postgres settings?  

> We had about 40 tables in the db, with joined queries on about 8-12 tables.

SELECTs only?  because. . .

> of records.  There were indexes on all join fields, and all join fields were
> listed as foriegn keys.  All join fields were unique primary keys in their

. . .you know that FK constraints in Postgres are not cheap, right?

> I did no tuning of MySql.  The only tuning for PG was to vacuum and vacuum
> analyze.

This appears to be a "yes" answer to my question above.  Out of the
box, PostgreSQL is set up to be able to run on a 1992-vintage SGI
Indy with 8 M of RAM (ok, I may be exaggerating, but only by a bit);
it is not tuned for performance.  Running without even tweaking the
shared buffers is guaranteed to get you lousy performance.

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS                           Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110