> Was the idea to measure the execution time with psql and via
> JDBC wrong?
It is not a wrong idea at all, but I do not think the difference between the
performance of psql and JDBC should be significant. What I am confused about
is the order of magnitude by which MS SQL outperformes PostgreSQL. I tested
PostgreSQL against Oracle, Interbase and Versant (an OODBMS) on Windows 2000
and I found that PostgreSQL was the second best just a bit behind Interbase
and scaled much better than Interbase -- and all this with the Cygwin
version of PostgreSQL which I expect to be inherently slower than a real
"native" version (say on Linux). Performance very much depends on the kind
of tasks you execute (ie. the kind of testcases you apply), but for my
purposes Interbase and PostgreSQL were significantly better than either
Oracle or Versant.
So my guess would be, that the observed huge performance gap between MS SQL
and PostgreSQL can be explained either (1) by the specific way your Java
server tier uses the JDBC connection or (2) some indexing problem (e.g. you
forgot to put an index on a column in one database which is indexed in the
other).
Or you may have a peculiar test case, for which MS SQL is tuned (perhaps by
default) much better than PostgreSQL.
Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Auri Mason [mailto:amason@syntrex.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:58 AM
> To: pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [JDBC] measure of JDBC performances
>
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> The Java server tier is running on P4 1900MHz 512MB and
> access via JDBC to
> a DB that could be:
> - PostgreSQL 7.2 - RH 7.2 (running on Celeron 733, 256MB)
> - MS SQL 2000 SP2 - Win NT4 SP6 (running on a clone machine
> as Postgres,
> same proc, same memory, same monitor! ;P )
>
> The client is running on another machine, always the same for
> both MS SQL
> and PostgreSQL tests (another clone of DBs machines).
>
> Was the idea to measure the execution time with psql and via
> JDBC wrong?
>
> Auri
>
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Kovács Péter wrote: