Message-ID: <47376352.5020805@commandprompt.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:17:22 -0800
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (Windows/20070809)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dimitri <dimitrik.fr@gmail.com>
CC: Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>,
	Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs MySQL, and FreeBSD
References: <47344D43.5090506@geri.cc.fer.hr> <47347F9F.1070309@laliluna.de>	
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0711091107590.29551@westnet.com>	
	<20071109140454.924e94b1.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>	
	<4734B884.9080501@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
	<5482c80a0711111127i79cfe651n4109a9fe3667b852@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5482c80a0711111127i79cfe651n4109a9fe3667b852@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dimitri wrote:
> Seems to me there is more thread model implementation problem on
> FreeBSD, and databases just reflecting it... Most of the test I done
> on Solaris show the same performance level on the same short READ-only
> queries for MySQL and PostgreSQL.
> 
> And to be honest till the end, thread model should be far faster
> (context switching between threads is way faster vs processes), but -
> as I say usually - even a very good idea may be just wasted by a poor
> implementation... And in case of MySQL they have too much locking to
> manage concurrency between threads which kills all thread model
> benefits... Also, to compare apples to apples, they should run this
> test from remote client  rather locally on the same host - however in
> this case the result for PostgreSQL will mostly depends on client
> implementation: if client implements reading via CURSOR (quite often),
> reading will generate 4x times more intensive network traffic than
> necessary and final PostgreSQL result will be worse...
> 
> Reading this article I'm just happy for them to see progress done on FreeBSD :-)
> As well to demonstrate OS parallelism it's not so impressive to see
> 4CPU server results rather 8CPU or 32threaded Niagara... Don't know
> why they did not present similar performance graphs for these
> platform, strange no?...

I don't find it strange. I would rather see benchmarks on what the 
majority of people running on the platform are going to run.

Most people don't run 8core machines and they especially don't run 
32thread Niagra boxes.

Joshua D. Drake

> 
> Rgds,
> -Dimitri
>