On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 17:06, Markus Schiltknecht wrote: > Tony Caduto wrote: > > http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/06/08/28/1738259.shtml > > > > Don't know the validity of this dvd order test they did, but the article > > claims Postgresql only did 120 OPM. > > Seems a little fishy to me. > > Now, this article really s**ks! First of all, the original contest was > specifically not only about performance. And the MySQL team did a whole > lot of dirty tricks (i.e. using memcached) to push their solution. > > I am the one who has written he only PostgreSQL entry, for which I'm > still sorry and ashamed, because it performs so poorly. I just didn't > have much spare time to spend, but thought I'd send it in anyway. One of > the reasons it did not perform well was, that I simply have forgotten to > enable connection pooling. Was this all the same basic task implemented by different teams then? Can we see the code? hack it? I'm sure someone here could help out. I don't care about the contest, but it would be nice to be able to put out a version that could compete with MySQL's.
