Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981564764F9; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:32:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F37E476879; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:30:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g97EUbhR023490; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:30:37 -0400 (EDT) To: shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-general , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [pgsql-performance] Large databases, performance In-reply-to: <3DA1A331.21316.F7E742B@localhost> References: <3DA1A331.21316.F7E742B@localhost> Comments: In-reply-to "Shridhar Daithankar" message dated "Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:07:29 +0530" Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 10:30:37 -0400 Message-ID: <23489.1034001037@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200210/383 X-Sequence-Number: 31381 "Shridhar Daithankar" writes: > MySQL 3.23.52 with innodb transaction support: > 4 concurrent queries :- 257.36 ms > 40 concurrent queries :- 35.12 ms > Postgresql 7.2.2 > 4 concurrent queries :- 257.43 ms > 40 concurrent queries :- 41.16 ms I find this pretty fishy. The extreme similarity of the 4-client numbers seems improbable, from what I know of the two databases. I suspect your numbers are mostly measuring some non-database-related overhead --- communications overhead, maybe? > Only worry is database size. Postgresql is 111GB v/s 87 GB for mysql. All > numbers include indexes. This is really going to be a problem when things are > deployed. Any idea how can it be taken down? 7.3 should be a little bit better because of Manfred's work on reducing tuple header size --- if you create your tables WITHOUT OIDS, you should save 8 bytes per row compared to earlier releases. regards, tom lane