Message-ID: <465084CE.5010703@tweakers.net>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 19:26:38 +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> <46507A40.505@tweakers.net>
	<op.tsmxycgdcigqcu@apollo13>
In-Reply-To: <op.tsmxycgdcigqcu@apollo13>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 20-5-2007 19:09 PFC wrote:
>     Since I use lighttpd, I don't really care about the number of actual 
> slow clients (ie. real concurrent HTTP connections). Everything is 
> funneled through those 8 PHP processes, so postgres never sees huge 
> concurrency.

Well, that would only be in favour of postgres anyway, it scales in our 
benchmarks better to multiple cpu's, multiple clients and appaerantly in 
yours to larger datasets. MySQL seems to be faster up untill a certain 
amount of concurrent clients (close to the amount of cpu's available) 
and beyond that can collapse dramatically.

>     I'm writing a full report, but I'm having a lot of problems with 
> MySQL, I'd like to give it a fair chance, but it shows real obstination 
> in NOT working.

Yeah, it displayed very odd behaviour when doing benchmarks here too. If 
you haven't done already, you can try the newest 5.0-verion (5.0.41?) 
which eliminates several scaling issues in InnoDB, but afaik not all of 
them. Besides that, it just can be pretty painful to get a certain query 
fast, although we've not very often seen it failing completely in the 
last few years.

Best regards,

Arjen van der Meijden