On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:36:33 +0100 "Robert Soeding" <robert.soeding@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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, Here's your problem right here. You're never going to get a fair comparison unless you tune the crap out of *both* contenders. PostgreSQL's default configuration is extremely conservative to allow it to be run on very limited resources. > 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. -- Russ
