On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 06/25/2012 01:23 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>> Craig James<cjames@emolecules.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It claims to be "the world's fastest database."
>>
>>
>>> [link where they boast of 80,000 tps read-only]
>>
>>
>> 20,000 tps? Didn't we hit well over 300,000 tps in read-only
>> benchmarks of PostgreSQL with some of the 9.2 performance
>> enhancements?
>
>
> It's 20K TPS on something that MySQL will only do 3.5 TPS. The queries must
> be much heavier than the ones PostgreSQL can get 200K+ on. We'd have to do
> a deeper analysis of the actual queries used to know exactly how much
> heavier though. They might be the type MySQL is usually faster than
> PostgreSQL on (i.e. ones using simple operations and operators), or they
> could be ones where PostgreSQL is usually faster than MySQL (i.e. more
> complicated joins). All I can tell you for sure if that they used a query
> mix that makes MemSQL look much faster than MySQL.
Considering I can build a pgsql 8.4 machine with 256G RAM and 64
Opteron cores and a handful of SSDs or HW RAID that can do REAL 7k to
8k RW TPS right now for well under $10k, 20k TPS on an in memory
database isn't all that impressive. I wonder what numbers pg 9.1/9.2
can / will be able to pull off on such hardare?