X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 311AD5288B for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 14:30:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 78339-05 for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 17:29:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mta10.nationwireless.net (mta10.nationwireless.net [63.163.128.10]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC5D552888 for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 14:29:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: from jfradkin [63.162.100.127] by mta10.nationwireless.net with ESMTP (SMTPD-8.20) id A4920388; Tue, 24 May 2005 13:29:54 -0400 From: "Joel Fradkin" To: "'Amit V Shah'" , "'Joshua D. Drake'" Cc: Subject: Re: Need help to decide Mysql vs Postgres Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 13:30:36 -0400 Message-ID: <005901c554bc$cff3bf90$797ba8c0@jfradkin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <0C072E7CC947D511AC9600A0CC7341200256CF04@xeon400.tagaudit.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.607 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, DATE_IN_PAST_96_XX, MSGID_DOLLARS X-Spam-Level: ** X-Archive-Number: 200505/363 X-Sequence-Number: 12527 I took an unbiased look and did some tests. Objectively for me MYSQL was not an improvement for speed. I had read the benchmarks in pcmagazine from a while back as well. I did some tests using ODBC, and .net connections and also used aqua = studios (hooks up to both data bases) and found postgres a bit faster. I did spend more time getting a feeling for setup on postgres, but I was = at a point of desperation as some queries were still too slow on postgres. I ended up re-engineering my app to use simpler(flattened) data sets. I still have a few I am working through, but all in all it is running = better then when I was on MSSQL, and MYSQL was just slower on the tests I did. I loaded both MYSQL and postgres on both my 4 processor Dell running red = hat AS3 and Windows XP on a optiplex. Joel Fradkin =20 Wazagua, Inc. 2520 Trailmate Dr Sarasota, Florida 34243 Tel. 941-753-7111 ext 305 =20 jfradkin@wazagua.com www.wazagua.com Powered by Wazagua Providing you with the latest Web-based technology & advanced tools. C 2004. WAZAGUA, Inc. All rights reserved. WAZAGUA, Inc This email message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized = review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the = intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete and = destroy all copies of the original message, including attachments. =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit V Shah Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:22 PM To: 'Joshua D. Drake' Cc: 'pgsql-performance@postgresql.org' Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Need help to decide Mysql vs Postgres Hi Josh, Thanks for the prompt reply !! Actually migration is inevitable. We have = a totally messed up schema, not normalized and stuff like that. So the = goal of the migration is to get a new and better normalized schema. That part is done already. Now the decision point is, should we go with postgres or mysql.=20 Thanks, Amit =20 -----Original Message----- From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 1:15 PM To: Amit V Shah Cc: 'pgsql-performance@postgresql.org' Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Need help to decide Mysql vs Postgres >=20 > I am not trying to start a mysql vs postgres war so please dont > misunderstand me .... I tried to look around for mysql vs postgres articles, > but most of them said mysql is better in speed. However those articles were > very old so I dont know about recent stage. Please comment !!! It is my experience that MySQL is faster under smaller load scenarios.=20 Say 5 - 10 connections only doing simple SELECTS. E.g; a dymanic = website. It is also my experience that PostgreSQL is faster and more stable under consistent and heavy load. I have customers you regularly are using up=20 to 500 connections. Note that alot of this depends on how your database is designed. Foreign = keys slow things down. I think it would be important for you to look at your overall goal of=20 migration. MySQL is really not a bad product "IF" you are willing to=20 work within its limitations. PostgreSQL is a real RDMS, it is like Oracle or DB2 and comes with a=20 comparable feature set. Only you can decide if that is what you need. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Command Prompt, Inc. --=20 Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org