From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
 pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 20:09:55 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [pgsql-performance] Large databases, performance 
Reply-To: shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in
Message-ID: <3DA1EA13.16626.10939155@localhost>
References: <3DA1A331.21316.F7E742B@localhost> 
In-reply-to: <23489.1034001037@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body

On 7 Oct 2002 at 10:30, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> 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?

I don't know but three numbers, postgresql/mysql/oracle all are 25x.xx ms. The 
clients were on same machie as of server. So no real area to point at..
> 
> > 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.

Got it..

Bye
 Shridhar

--
Sweater, n.:	A garment worn by a child when its mother feels chilly.