Jayant Kumar did some benchmarking of InnoDB vs. PostgreSQL and PG came out 5 times faster. The benchmark isn't very thoroughly described, but it turns out not to matter.
http://jayant7k.blogspot.com/2010/09/database-speed-tests-mysql-and.html Apparently, the reason we're faster is that wal_sync_method = open_datasync, which is the default on MacOS X, doesn't actually work. [rhaas pgbench]$ pgbench -t 100000 -j 4 -c 4 pgbench starting vacuum...end. transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 25 query mode: simple number of clients: 4 number of threads: 4 number of transactions per client: 100000 number of transactions actually processed: 400000/400000 tps = 1292.258304 (including connections establishing) tps = 1292.281493 (excluding connections establishing) Clearly we're not getting 1292 (or even 1292/4) fsync per second out of whatever HD is in my laptop. So what happens if we change to fsync_writethrough, which is the equivalent of what InnoDB apparently does out of the box? [rhaas pgsql]$ pg_ctl reload server signaled LOG: received SIGHUP, reloading configuration files LOG: parameter "wal_sync_method" changed to "fsync_writethrough" [rhaas pgbench]$ pgbench -t 100000 -j 4 -c 4 pgbench starting vacuum...end. transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 25 query mode: simple number of clients: 4 number of threads: 4 number of transactions per client: 100000 number of transactions actually processed: 400000/400000 tps = 27.845797 (including connections establishing) tps = 27.845809 (excluding connections establishing) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
