Slashdot Mirror
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."
however the test-hardwares of the other DB systems are somewhat different
Which makes the results pretty much useless. But, being the intrepid slashdotter I am, I went ahead and R'ed the FA anyway, in case I could glean some useful information from it.
Which revealed that the linked article doesn't actually contain any information whatsoever about Oracle* or MySQL, much less benchmarks on named hardware.
So...what am I supposed to get out of this, again? Or is this just supposed to be some kind of PostgreSQL love-in, so I should take my wet blanket elsewhere?
*Well, the second link contains someone claiming that Oracle is only 15% faster...but without providing any actual data.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
You cannot compare benchmarks without SOMETHING standard between them.
Okay, if they can't match the hardware (why not?) then focus on price points. I notice that they're looking at "$65,500 for the hardware". That's a LOT of hardware at today's prices.
I'm sure MySQL would (and will) come back with a "benchmark" on hardware costing $10,000.
There is nothing "real" about this "benchmark".
To paraphrase an old saying:
There are lies, damned lies and benchmarks.
Bearded Dragon
I like yours better. The Slashdot editors need to have their balls cut off if they think the post that beat your onto the front page is better. Feel free to mod me down any time for bitching about this, but seriously, this post is SO much better than the one that made it.
I hate printers.
however the test-hardwares of the other DB systems are somewhat different
Which makes the results pretty much useless.
Not necessarily.
It's essentially useless for separating out how much of the performance difference is the result of the software's design, implementation, and tuning versus how much is due to the platform differences.
But such tests CAN be used to examine the performance of competing ENTIRE SYSTEMS, to inform choices between them.
They say: "Oracle on does THIS well, PostgreSQL on can be tuned so it does THAT well on the same benchmark."
This lets administrators (presuming they have access to the hardware info) get a bang-for-the-buck comparison.
For the rest of us, the interesting point is that PostgreSQL, running on its team's idea of realistic hardware, can produce performance in the same ballpark as Oracle running on Oracle's choice of hardware.
(Whether the necessary remaining data (what are hardwares x and y? how was PostgreSQL tunde) is published now, later, or never, is a separate issue. B-) )
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I dunno, I kinda like MSSQL. Hell, I use it alongside MySQL servers for my own projects (that, and having support for multiple platforms in your product is kinda a good idea). Sure, it's got horrific licensing (nowhere near as bad as Oracle's, though) but other than that, it's pretty good and reliable. I get the impression that the core of it wasn't written by MS way back when, though. And it sure wasn't built by the Windows team.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Oh, I agree. A benchmark of whole systems can be just as (or more) useful as a benchmark of individual pieces of software, depending on what your goals are.
But what's been presented here isn't even that. Links #1 takes us to a SPEC benchmark of PostgreSQL. It doesn't provide any information about anything else; there isn't anything to compare the benchmark to. Link #2 provides an unreferenced statement about Oracle's marginally superior performance on much more expensive equipment.
So, perhaps, one can begin to draw conclusions about PostgreSQL vs Oracle in the contexts of full systems. But neither link #1 nor link #2 provide any information about MySQL (except the quote: "[t]his publication shows that a properly tuned PostgreSQL is not only as fast or faster than MySQL").
Really, my criticism isn't of the benchmark (the data are the data, after all) or of the blog (one expects a vested PostgreSQL interest to comment on such a benchmark), but of the blurb here that either a) draws totally unwarranted conclusions, or b) depends on information it doesn't bother sharing.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
If you want to setup a dedicated database server, you want to know what software with what hardware will run the fastest. So while the benchmarks may not be useful to people wanting to setup a small multi-purpose server, it can still be useful for some people.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
"Dolphin" also conveys "fun play thing" to me...
I'd prefer the elephant that never forgets.
Actually I think PostgreSQL might have eaten a lot more of the MySQL market if they'd simply been faster to market with better admin tools and Windows support.
Lots of folks went with MySQL early because of those factors. They also then tended to write all their PHP, etc, applications to only talk to MySQL, thus making folks who might have preferred PostgreSQL use MySQL to run the app that they needed to run. Once that happens you are kind of in a Catch-22 place. Folks won't write the apps for PostgreSQL until it's used by a larger chunk of the market, but it won't take that large chunk because all the 'cool' apps were written MySQL only, so they have to run MySQL instead of PostgreSQL
> MySQL, as others have pointed out, has better developer support and they know their target audience. They supply a fast,
> easy to use database for those who don't need a whole lot.
> Oracle supplies an enterprise level database that MySQL doesn't aspire to.
> PostgreSQL doesn't know where to fit in.
This is an oversimplification. Each vendor sees itself in all markets:
- oracle/db2/sql server have free versions for tiny apps and very expensive versions for massive apps
- mysql says it doesn't want to do what oracle does, but also says that this is less than 1% of the market - and knows that plenty of smallish databases are on oracle
- postgresql like the others sees itself doing anything from very small databases to very large ones (often via Enterprise DB or other vendor extensions)
And using a single product for multiple sizes isn't illogical: if you have any very large databases (hundreds of gbytes or more) then you probably have a few dozen little ones as well. It's *far* easier to manage them all on oracle/db2/sql server - even with the small additional licensing costs - than to have a frankenstein collection of products to manage.
"Best tool for the job" is a good consideration when evaluating products (along with vendor viability, cost, etc, etc) - but once you've got a single tool in house to keep adding new products - each with their own licensing, support, patch, backup/recovery procedures, etc is a nightmare. Let alone actually federating your data - and having to test out how to virtualize or replicate data from oracle 10.x.x with mysql 5.y.y
> Performance is one aspect of the price tag, but it is certainly not the only factor.
Very true - and for that reason Postgresql has more going for it than many alternatives, like:
- best licensing options - you don't need to pay a lawyer to go over your contract or license like you should if you use oracle or mysql commercially. And there's no fear that the vendor will change its license terms once you're locked in and start charging an arm and a leg.
- very good foundation - postgesql isn't built from duct tape and bailing wire. The functionality within it is well tested and robust.
- great support for standard database features - whether its subselects, stored procedures, triggers, etc - it's very simple to move from oracle to postgresql.
- great ansi sql support - again, very standard sql - no unnecessarily propretary language elements.
So, yeah - just because Postgresql is performing well on some benchmarks that doesn't mean you should immediately throw out oracle in favor of postgresql. On the other hand, you also shouldn't discard it because it is a good general purpose database solution.
PostgreSQL's command-line shell is far better than mysql. In addition to what mysql does, psql supports tab-completion and other nice things. It's been a while since I looked at mysql, but when I did the difference between the two respective command-line interfaces was like the difference between bash and sh.
2) Extensive developer community. We use python and the MySQL/python integration is great. We have a few UDFs that are home-grown but some of them were just downloaded off the net and installed. I'm sure you can find far more for MySQL than for Postgres.
Uh-huh. You are "sure". Several times I asked for support on postgresql mailing lists and the response has always been excellent. Usually I got answers within hours.
I think one of the reasons that mysql became ubiquitous is that it had proper windows support early on. So, just like windows, everyone uses mysql because everyone else does, and they are willing to jump through hoops to work around all the deficiencies the platform has, simply because they don't know any better.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.