Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.191])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E6A9F9692
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  9 Nov 2007 16:16:57 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 60239-09 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  9 Nov 2007 16:13:13 -0400 (AST)
Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CCAB9F959D
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  9 Nov 2007 16:13:13 -0400 (AST)
Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72])
	by news.hub.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lA9KD9Te036459
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 9 Nov 2007 16:13:09 -0400 (AST)
	(envelope-from news@news.hub.org)
Received: (from news@localhost)
	by news.hub.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id lA9JhsSK004762
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org;
	Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:43:54 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from news)
From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs MySQL, and FreeBSD
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:44:04 -0800
Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4734B884.9080501@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
References: <47344D43.5090506@geri.cc.fer.hr>	<47347F9F.1070309@laliluna.de>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0711091107590.29551@westnet.com>
	<20071109140454.924e94b1.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org
To: Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.14pre (X11/20071020)
In-Reply-To: <20071109140454.924e94b1.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200711/155
X-Sequence-Number: 27570

Bill Moran wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:11:18 -0500 (EST)
> Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Sebastian Hennebrueder wrote:
>>> If the queries are complex, this is understable.
>> The queries used for this comparison are trivial.  There's only one table 
>> involved and there are no joins.  It's testing very low-level aspects of 
>> performance.
> 
> Actually, what it's really showing is parallelism, and I've always
> expected PostgreSQL to come out on top in that arena.

Isn't it showing Postgres winning even without parallelism.

At 1 threads, Postgres looks like 800TPS where MysQL comes
in at about 600TPS on their Opteron charts.