Re: Great Bridge benchmark results for Postgres, 4 others
От | Adam Ruth |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Great Bridge benchmark results for Postgres, 4 others |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8neaf1$1hjp$1@news.aros.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Great Bridge benchmark results for Postgres, 4 others (Ned Lilly <ned@greatbridge.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
I just want to add that these benchmarks actually somewhat validate my own testing. I was evaluating PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server two months ago. I ran a series of tests that I felt approximated the load that was then current. We had a database that ran on MS SQL Server, and I was trying to convince management to switch to PostgreSQL. They weren't too happy about forking over $12,000 just to license MSSQL on the 4 processor box. My testing showed that for small (meaning simple) queries, which was the lion's share of the work, PostgreSQL was about 20% faster than SQL Server. Inserts, updates, and deletes were on par, and could vary from each other by about 10% either way. It seemed that PostgreSQL was slower when inserting records into tables with may indexes when the tables had many records (many being > 500,000). The more complex the query got, the faster MS SQL Server became. It seemed to be able to use an index in places that PostgreSQL couldn't, and could use parallelism for some of the larger queries. But since those kinds of queries are rare, they didn't impact the decision much. Optimization is a tricky business to begin with. They scaled up about the same. The only need is for about 25 internal users, and a few concurrent internet users (using connection pooling). We didn't test above that, because we didn't have the resources. This company expects to grow their database greatly. It's currently at about 70,000 records, but they expect to reach 500,000 in the not too distant future. Toward that end, I performed the tests with 2,000,000 records, just to be sure. This seems to weigh in on the advantage of PostgreSQL, but it doesn't tell the whole story. The SQL Server machine was a Compaq 4x650 Xeon box, with 512 MB of RAM. The PostgreSQL machine was a Gateway ALR 1x600 Pentium III, with 512 MB of RAM. -- Adam Ruth InterCation, Inc. www.intercation.com "Ned Lilly" <ned@greatbridge.com> wrote in message news:399AA636.790ED86E@greatbridge.com... > Hi Fabrice, > > We just ran the benchmarks, the same software that the trade magazines use when they're > evaluating commercial products. The results speak for themselves. > > We certainly don't want to over-boast... and I can assure you that every assertion in > that story was double and triple-checked for accuracy. People can draw their own > conclusions from the results - like all benchmarks, it's only useful inasmuch as it > gives you a directional indicator about the capabilities of the product. Particularly > in this case, since it was only a single-processor machine with only 1-100 users. But > we wanted to share the results of our testing with the community, and perhaps stimulate > more formal testing by other "unbiased" parties (e.g. the technical trade press). > > Regards, > Ned > > > > Fabrice Scemama wrote: > > > Ned, I just love Postgres... I strongly believe it can compete > > with major commercial DBMS, and that it rules over free DBMS > > (be opensource or not, like MySQL). > > > > But I think Postgres' performance should not be over-boasted, > > because such behaviour could only mislead and possibly deceipt > > future users. As a commercial consulting company, you might > > consider adding some disclaimers to your benchmarks. > > > > Fabrice >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: