On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 06:25:21PM -0300, Jorge Godoy wrote: > "Jacob Coby" <jcoby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > We were looking to improve our session performance, so I did a basic > > test of using mysql 4.0 innodb vs postgres 8.1. The test did a simple > > retrieve, update, save; 1 time per page. mysql was stock, pg had a > > shared_buffers and a couple of other standard tweaks done. ab was used > > to provide the load. server was an old dell pe2450 with 640mb of ram. > > tables were simple and a single primary key-foreign key relationship > > between them. > > > > pg was not only faster, it scaled to higher concurrency and had more > > predictable response times. mysql nosed over at around 5 concurrent > > connections. pg went to somewhere around 15. > > > > the more I read, the more it seems that mysql speed is a myth. it may > > be faster for simple flat-text sort of operations with one or two > > concurrent users where the app maintains RI, validates all data, and > > handles all of the complex joins. it just doesn't seem to scale up as > > well as pg. > > I'm sorry but you tuned PG and not MySQL. This by itself makes that claim a > problem. If you used PG stock versys MySQL stock, then it would be more > valid. When comparing two things you have to give them the most fair > condition that is possible (i.e., either put two experts to tune both or use > both as shipped by their suppliers). Not necessarily. Last I heard, MySQL ships with multiple config files, ie: small, medium and large. So by choosing one of those you're effectively tuning MySQL as well. If you want a real apples-apples out-of-the-box, run MySQL with a small config and PostgreSQL stock. -- Jim Nasby jim@xxxxxxxxx EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
