On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Brad Nicholson <bnich...@ca.afilias.info> wrote: > On 10-07-29 08:54 PM, Greg Smith wrote: >> >> Brad Nicholson wrote: >>> >>> Postgres also had a reputation of being slow compared to MySQL. >>> This was due to a lot of really poor MySQL vs Postgres benchmarks >>> floating around in the early 2000's. >> >> I think more of those were fair than you're giving them credit for. > > I'm sure some where, but I recall a lot that were not. > > The main problems I recall is that they took the stock postgresql.conf > (which was far to restrictive) and measured it against a much better MySQL > config. They then measured some unrealistic test for most applications and > declared MySQL the clear winner for everything and Postgres slow as a dog. >
I would like to point out that in general the opposite is probably generally in effect at this point. For software dev that downloads MySQL 5.1 and PG 8.4 and selects sane options PG will probably have a significant advantage. MyISAM is dead.* Innodb does not make much use of fs caching, while PG depends on it. With a "detuned" instance PG will likely have a significant advantage over Innodb for that reason. *Pretend to be a developer and install MySQL on windows. You will probably not get a MyISAM default. -- Rob Wultsch wult...@gmail.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
