Hi. Do you compare apples to apples? InnoDB tables to PostgreSQL? Are all needed indexes available? Are you sure about that? What about fsync? Does the benchmark insert a lot of rows? Have you tested placing the WAL on a separate disk? Is PostgreSQL logging more stuff? Another thing: have you analyzed the tables? Have you tested higher shared_buffers? And the last thing: there are lies, damn lies and benchmarks. What does a benchmark, which might be optimized for one DB, help you with your own db workload? There are soooo many things that can go wrong with a benchmark if you don't have real knowledge on how to optimize both DBMS that it is just worthless to use it anyway if you don't have the knowledge ... PostgreSQL outperforms MySQL in our environment in EVERY situation needed by the application. So, does the benchmark represent your work load? Does the benchmark result say anything for your own situation? Or is this all for the sake of running a benchmark? cug On 9/21/06, yoav x <yoav112003@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi After upgrading DBI and DBD::Pg, this benchmark still picks MySQL as the winner (at least on Linux RH3 on a Dell 1875 server with 2 hyperthreaded 3.6GHz CPUs and 4GB RAM). I've applied the following parameters to postgres.conf: max_connections = 500 shared_buffers = 3000 work_mem = 100000 effective_cache_size = 3000000000 Most queries still perform slower than with MySQL. Is there anything else that can be tweaked or is this a limitation of PG or the benchmark? Thanks.
-- PostgreSQL Bootcamp, Big Nerd Ranch Europe, Nov 2006 http://www.bignerdranch.com/news/2006-08-21.shtml
