X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9EFDC51B for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 08:16:32 -0400 (AST) 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 15572-06-5 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 08:16:24 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from cassarossa.samfundet.no (cassarossa.samfundet.no [129.241.93.19]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D7ADBB13 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 07:52:37 -0400 (AST) Received: from trofast.ipv6.sesse.net ([2001:700:300:dc03:20e:cff:fe36:a766] helo=trofast.sesse.net) by cassarossa.samfundet.no with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EgL59-0002Rp-M3 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 12:52:35 +0100 Received: from sesse by trofast.sesse.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1EgL4V-0004lE-00 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 12:51:55 +0100 Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 12:51:55 +0100 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Open request for benchmarking input Message-ID: <20051127115155.GB18128@uio.no> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.14 on a i686 X-Message-Flag: Outlook? --> http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/527 X-Sequence-Number: 15784 On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 01:57:47PM -0500, Qingqing Zhou wrote: > Don't forget TPCC (data > memory, with intensive updates). So the benchmarks > in my mind include TPCC, TPCH and TPCW. I'm lost in all those acronyms, but am I right in assuming that none of these actually push the planner very hard? We keep on pushing that "PostgreSQL is a lot better than MySQL when it comes to many joins and complex queries" (mostly because the planner is a lot more mature -- does MySQL even keep statistics yet?), but I'm not sure if there are any widely used benchmarks available that actaully excercise that. /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/