There is another blog article comparing postgresql with mysql, where the postgres is slow thing is repeated and the benchmark tends to confirm. The blogger is new to postgres and does not represent the test as definative. http://wskills.blogspot.com/2007/01/postgresql-vs-mysql-benchmark.html First, I'm not an expert with either database and don't have anything useful to say on the topic. Second, quite a number of the folks here think postgres holds it own re performance very well, and I trust this crew. Third, anyone that cares and has meaningful comments to offer on the subject might consider posting a comment on that blog. Fourth, am I being a pita by posting this kind of message here? I do it because while I know it's an old and probably annoying topic for many of you, I don't like myths like postgres/slow mysql/fast being perpetuated. But if you all tell me to hang it up I will...I figured that informing the community re these articles might be a minor contribution. novnov wrote: > > In an interview "An interview with Adam Machanic" at > > http://www.simple-talk.com/sql/sql-server-2005/sql-server,-postgressql-and-fish-curry/ > > at the bottom of the page is a post by Andrew Clarke that says pgsql is > much slower in comparison to ms sql. I've read a fair number of posts > recently debunking the usual "mysql is faster than pgsql" drone, but a > comparison with ms sql is less often heard. Can someone who has first hand > experience with both databases comment? Article is Aug 2006. > > I don't care if pgsql is somewhat slower than sql server 2005, but I do > care if it's a lot slower, particularly running queries with complex > joins. > > Here is the relavant part >>>>> > PostgreSQL! Although I have a certain fondness for it and very much hope > it will eventually succeed, we must be realistic. Species have evolved in > the time it takes to execute a decent bit of SQL. It runs sometimes at a > tenth of the speed of SQLite. Have a look at some of the public > comparative benchmarks. > > As an exercise, I once created a reasonably simple customer database > containing a million customer records along with all the usual NAD data. I > installed it on SQL Server and PostgreSQL. (thanks to the EMS tools, bless > them). They were both on the same Windows 2000 box. > > The SQL Server system, on average, took a twentieth of the time to produce > results from SQL, and the more joins, the more astonishing the difference. > I'd assumed that I'd made some ghastly mistake in the installation of > PostgreSQL so I got a PostgreSQL expert to check my installation. No > mistake. He said that maybe it would run faster on Linux. I tried that, > but failed to be excited. > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Speed-of-postgres-compared-to-ms-sql%2C-is-this-article-comment-off--tf2614575.html#a8415104 Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
