Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have not studied this contest in any detail. However the
>> performance differences seem kind of unrealistic:
>> http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/press-release/release_2006_35.html
>>
>> regards,
>> Lukas
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
>
> this is pure marketing.
> i have seen postgres beat mysql in many many cases. same with oracle.
> i assume that those tests are all done with ISAM. with ISAM everything
> is fast but you cannot reboot the box without facing serious
> corruption. in business applications stability is as least as
> important as speed.
>
> as far as the mysql benchmark is concerned: it is like one of those
> studies where professor marlboro says that smoking is good for health ...
This was done by c't, not mysql. But the article title is misleading: it
doesn't compare database systems, but application tuning. Unfortunately,
the prerequisites where quite mysql-drawn right from the start. The
MySQL team did a very good job tuning the existent application to access
the database as rare as possible using memcache, and dropped all
constraints (no surprise...). Porting _that_ optimized app to pgsql
would be really interesting and comparable.
Regards,
Andreas