Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7755D2E3575 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:36:53 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 92911-01-10 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:36:47 -0400 (AST) Received: from outmail129178.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail129178.authsmtp.co.uk [62.13.129.178]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B018B2E387E for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:36:30 -0400 (AST) Received: from outmail128185.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail128185.authsmtp.co.uk [62.13.128.185]) by punt3.authsmtp.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Kp) with ESMTP id m14IaTUP058323 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:36:29 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.3] (85-211-31-42.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk [85.211.31.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Kp) with ESMTP id m14IaSHw088093 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:36:28 GMT Subject: Benchmark Data requested From: Simon Riggs To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:37:16 +0000 Message-Id: <1202150236.4252.521.camel@ebony.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Quench: 1924d07c-d350-11dc-9554-001185d377ca X-AuthRoute: OCdxZQATClZOTQEd DAteCiNZVAwpPBRK HVkIKg5MOFUSTAAU KktAIF1JNVQaTlxx QzlIHwMWBR4wBX0q KV0fbQFCFB8cQAdq UEBZQ1pYFwNiAxRP DhsAUBhzaQZHZnpy ekRnQXAVAUV+DBce OglUHWUGbGQuaWEY VA5ZfgFQJANNLQIR aVV/SXIMNTYab39l Q0prZ2lobWhTc3sK SQgbB18USkYOFyQ/ DzwLATxnB0AcWigo MxEqQmMy X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633235383639.squirrel.dmpriest.net.uk:787/Kp X-Report-SPAM: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-Virus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system! X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200802/7 X-Sequence-Number: 28549 Can I ask for some help with benchmarking? There are some results here that show PostgreSQL is slower in some cases than Monet and MySQL. Of course these results were published immediately prior to 8.2 being released, plus run out-of-the-box, so without even basic performance tuning. Would anybody like to repeat these tests with the latest production versions of these databases (i.e. with PGSQL 8.3), and with some sensible tuning settings for the hardware used? It will be useful to get some blind tests with more sensible settings. http://monetdb.cwi.nl/projects/monetdb//SQL/Benchmark/TPCH/ Multiple runs from different people/different hardware is useful since they help to iron-out differences in hardware and test methodology. So don't worry if you see somebody else doing this also. Thanks, -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com