Benchmark-Comparison PostGreSQL vs. SQL Server

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Soeding
Тема Benchmark-Comparison PostGreSQL vs. SQL Server
Дата
Msg-id CCD6162BAFAF214083DA957DD227903E01A5BB@lisocon-6.intern.lisocon.de
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответы Re: Benchmark-Comparison PostGreSQL vs. SQL Server  (Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>)
Re: Benchmark-Comparison PostGreSQL vs. SQL Server  (Russ Brown <pickscrape@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-general

Hi, this is my first question here, and also, it's somewhat delicate. So please be patient.
 
My question is, CAN PostGreSQL perform in the SQL Server area when it comes to speed?
In other words, are there explanations for the results I found (see below)?
 
Thanks,
Robert
 
-----
Background:
1. I read people were using PostGreSQL with TeraBytes of data sometimes, or thousands of users. These are things that could easily break SQL Server. - So I thought PostGreSQL might be similar fast to SQL Server.
 
2. I did some tests:
Windows XP SP2
Several GIGs free harddisk, ~400 MB free RAM
Java 1.5 / JDBC
PostGreSQL 8.0 beta (through Windows Installer), default configuration, default driver
SQL Server 2000 SP3a, default configuration, JDTS driver
Tablespaces of both databases on the same partition
Write-Test: Creating tables (slightly modified TCP-W benchmark)
Read-Test: Simple SELECT statements on all tables, returning the first 1000 rows (cursor variants: read-only and non-locking, resp. updatable and locking)
 
Results:
Writing: SQL Server 25 times faster.
Reading: SQL Server 100 times faster.

В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Nageshwar Rao
Дата:
Сообщение: How to display structure of a table
Следующее
От: Chris Green
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: How to display structure of a table