On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Mikkel Høgh <mikkel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In any case, if anyone has any tips, input, etc. on how best to configure > PostgreSQL for Drupal, or can find a way to poke holes in my analysis, I > would love to hear your insights :) It'd be more accurate to configure Drupal for PostgreSQL. We use PostgreSQL for almost everything, including many drupal sites, but the usage pattern of Drupal puts PostgreSQL at a disadvantage. In short, Drupal issues a lot of small, simple SQL (100+ is the norm), that makes tuning hard. To make it faster, you'd need to turn on Drupal's caches (and PHP opcode caches) to reduce the number of SQLs issued. To get even better numbers, you'd need to get Drupal to use memcached instead of calling PostgreSQL for the simple lookups. You can use the devel module in Drupal to have a look at the SQLs issued. Not pretty, IMHO. See: http://2bits.com/articles/benchmarking-postgresql-vs-mysql-performance-using-drupal-5x.html http://2bits.com/articles/advcache-and-memcached-benchmarks-with-drupal.html The most promising Drupal performance module for performance looks like: http://drupal.org/project/cacherouter (900 req/s!) but I haven't got the chance to give it a go yet. I'm a die-hard PostgreSQL and Drupal supporter, but in this case, I concede straight up Drupal+MySQL will always be faster than Drupal+PostgreSQL because of the way Drupal uses the database. We still use PostgreSQL for our Drupal sites though, because while it's slower, it's plenty fast enough. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
