Message-ID: <46507A40.505@tweakers.net>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 18:41:36 +0200
From: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PFC <lists@peufeu.com>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres Benchmark Results
References: <op.tsmrv71ecigqcu@apollo13>
In-Reply-To: <op.tsmrv71ecigqcu@apollo13>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I assume red is PostgreSQL and green is MySQL. That reflects my own 
benchmarks with those two.

But I don't fully understand what the graph displays. Does it reflect 
the ability of the underlying database to support a certain amount of 
users per second given a certain database size? Or is the growth of the 
database part of the benchmark?

Btw, did you consider that older topics are normally read much less and 
almost never get new postings? I think the size of the "active data set" 
is more dependent on the amount of active members than on the actual 
amount of data available.
That can reduce the impact of the size of the database greatly, although 
we saw very nice gains in performance on our forum (over 22GB of 
messages) when replacing the databaseserver with one with twice the 
memory, cpu's and I/O.

Best regards,

Arjen

On 20-5-2007 16:58 PFC wrote:
> 
>     I felt the world needed a new benchmark ;)
>     So : Forum style benchmark with simulation of many users posting and 
> viewing forums and topics on a PHP website.
> 
>     http://home.peufeu.com/ftsbench/forum1.png
> 
>     One of those curves is "a very popular open-source database which 
> claims to offer unparallelled speed".
>     The other one is of course Postgres 8.2.3 which by popular belief is 
> "full-featured but slow"
> 
>     What is your guess ?
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>