Message-ID: <4FEFCFA3.50305@2ndQuadrant.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 00:18:43 -0400
From: Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111120 Icedove/3.1.16
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: MemSQL the "world's fastest database"?
References: 
 <CAFwQ8rcpbZsR3Ndk8GoVsqGhc8y+M8siBmMDN1X=mom4uAO8ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FE8582F0200002500048AAD@gw.wicourts.gov>
In-Reply-To: <4FE8582F0200002500048AAD@gw.wicourts.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 06/25/2012 01:23 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Craig James<cjames@emolecules.com>  wrote:
>
>> It claims to be "the world's fastest database."
>
>> [link where they boast of 80,000 tps read-only]
>
> 20,000 tps?  Didn't we hit well over 300,000 tps in read-only
> benchmarks of PostgreSQL with some of the 9.2 performance
> enhancements?

It's 20K TPS on something that MySQL will only do 3.5 TPS.  The queries 
must be much heavier than the ones PostgreSQL can get 200K+ on.  We'd 
have to do a deeper analysis of the actual queries used to know exactly 
how much heavier though.  They might be the type MySQL is usually faster 
than PostgreSQL on (i.e. ones using simple operations and operators), or 
they could be ones where PostgreSQL is usually faster than MySQL (i.e. 
more complicated joins).  All I can tell you for sure if that they used 
a query mix that makes MemSQL look much faster than MySQL.

-- 
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com