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.