First "Real" Benchmark for PostgreSQL

anticlimate writes "A new benchmark published on SPEC shows PostgreSQL's performance approaching that of Oracle's and surpassing or on par with MySQL (however the test-hardwares of the other DB systems are somewhat different). The test was put together by PostgreSQL's core developers working at Sun. They certainly are not unbiased, but this is the first 'real' benchmark with PostgreSQL — according to Josh Berkus's blog. The main difference compared to earlier benchmarks (and anecdotes) seems to be the tuning of PostgreSQL."

Comments

Benchmarks are like skidmarks

[Anonymous Coward]

They're all shitty.

Re:on the playground...

[CaseCrash]

boys use mysql men use PostgreSQL, and _____ use MSSQL. and people who like to collect a paycheck use MSSQL.

Re:hardware

[morgan_greywolf]

nope. It's h4rdw4r3z!

Elephant

[suv4x4]

Won't you guys agree, "elephant" doesn't exactly communicate "fast and modern" very well.
"Dolphin" comes a bit closer.

Who's coming up with those logos?

Re:Elephant

[turing_m]

If the final decision in choosing an RDBMS comes down to the logo, the choice of database will be the least of your problems.

Re:on the playground...

[teknopurge]

Intelligent people use SQLite (or Berkeley DB) for apps that don't require a heavyweight DBMS.

Databases are even being used in many situations that would be better addressed using flat files. That kind of mainframe/JCL talk is not welcome here...

Re:hardware

[Deadplant]

No! gad damn it!
"h4rdw4r3" is however an acceptable alternate spelling.

Re:Good, but it can be improved.

[suv4x4]

Get people from each group, give them the requirements and 5 different dollar amounts.
Let each team setup their systems how ever they want at each price point. Some will go with clustered servers. Some will go a single monster server. They know their products best so they'll be the ones best suited to choosing the configuration.

We gave each team $10000 and told them to build the best hardware and db setup they can:

** PostgreSQL got a small IBM Blade quad machine redundant setup:
"We're relying on standard industry solutions and reliability."

** MySQL clustered 4 PlayStation3 machines and wasted the rest on booze and women:
"We're practical, plus we know what is money best spent on!".

** Oracle purchased a 1200 square foot datacenter and installed a megacluster of 8132 quad-Xeon 64GB RAM 4TB disk machines. With $10'000...?!
"We... uhmm... we hit a great bargain, guys! You wouldn't believe it, but it's true!"

I love this

[RelliK]

Back when mysql was faster than postgres for simple selects, mysql proponents were jumping up and down about performance. And, in fact, a very narrow definition of performance, with only simple reads. No writes. Single CPU. One client. You can't step too far away from those parameters because then mysql performance starts to suck.

Now that there is a respectable benchmark showing postgresql to be faster, performance is suddenly not the issue.

Yep. It's right up there with mysql developers claiming that transactions are useless back when mysql didn't have them.

Re:SQLite versus Postgres

[nuzak]

> Can't say anything about PgSQL, because I couldn't figure out how to set that up.

apt-get install postgresql-server too hard for you? Or are you having trouble double-clicking on the .MSI installer?

Re:Mod parent way up!

[jedidiah]

I've done OLAP that would make your database server hardware melt and make a hole in your datacenter floor.

Re:Mod parent way up!

[timmarhy]

that would be because they are testing serious db applications, not your fucking toy shit. $65,000 on a server is no big deal at all.