RE: MySQL vs. Postgres
you can find the perl software i use (free) at www.awsd.com :-) -Original Message- From: Sanjeev Gupta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 1:05 AM To: Scott Thompson Cc: debian-isp@lists.debian.org Subject: RE: MySQL vs. Postgres >On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Scott Thompson wrote: > > > Some stats for you. Keep in mind that these are only for the webserver. > > > > Hits Bytes Visits PViews Month > >8,891,404 58,798,965,869 211,007 1,528,073 Jun 2000 > > 10,853,047 57,775,413,897 224,862 1,375,197 Jul 2000 > >9,121,259 53,851,857,460 210,680 1,421,053 Aug 2000 Off topic: How did you generate this table? How are you defining Visits and Page Views? Thanks -- Ghane
RE: MySQL vs. Postgres
you can find the perl software i use (free) at www.awsd.com :-) -Original Message- From: Sanjeev Gupta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 1:05 AM To: Scott Thompson Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: MySQL vs. Postgres >On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Scott Thompson wrote: > > > Some stats for you. Keep in mind that these are only for the webserver. > > > > Hits Bytes Visits PViews Month > >8,891,404 58,798,965,869 211,007 1,528,073 Jun 2000 > > 10,853,047 57,775,413,897 224,862 1,375,197 Jul 2000 > >9,121,259 53,851,857,460 210,680 1,421,053 Aug 2000 Off topic: How did you generate this table? How are you defining Visits and Page Views? Thanks -- Ghane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MySQL vs. Postgres
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Scott Thompson wrote: > Some stats for you. Keep in mind that these are only for the webserver. > > Hits Bytes Visits PViews Month >8,891,404 58,798,965,869 211,007 1,528,073 Jun 2000 > 10,853,047 57,775,413,897 224,862 1,375,197 Jul 2000 >9,121,259 53,851,857,460 210,680 1,421,053 Aug 2000 Off topic: How did you generate this table? How are you defining Visits and Page Views? Thanks -- Ghane
RE: MySQL vs. Postgres
>On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Scott Thompson wrote: > > > Some stats for you. Keep in mind that these are only for the webserver. > > > > Hits Bytes Visits PViews Month > >8,891,404 58,798,965,869 211,007 1,528,073 Jun 2000 > > 10,853,047 57,775,413,897 224,862 1,375,197 Jul 2000 > >9,121,259 53,851,857,460 210,680 1,421,053 Aug 2000 Off topic: How did you generate this table? How are you defining Visits and Page Views? Thanks -- Ghane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MySQL vs. Postgres
Yes it was compiled into the Apache server, as well as we were using the C api for mysql. On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Scott Thompson wrote: > > > Some stats for you. Keep in mind that these are only for the webserver. > > Hits Bytes Visits PViews Month >8,891,404 58,798,965,869 211,007 1,528,073 Jun 2000 > 10,853,047 57,775,413,897 224,862 1,375,197 Jul 2000 >9,121,259 53,851,857,460 210,680 1,421,053 Aug 2000 > > Granted we have other clients, but I would guess that 60-80% of the > consumers are 'real estate interested'. > > > > We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with > > the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages > into > > ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The > > performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice > about Was PHP installed as a server module or as a CGI app? CGI PHP vs. CGI C of course the former is slower. I'd like to compare modphp vs CGI C in your setup. Best way of course would be to write your own dedicated server module in C. Best for performance, of course... .TM. -- / / / / / / Marco Colombo ___/ ___ / / Technical Manager / / / ESI s.r.l. _/ _/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MySQL vs. Postgres
Yes it was compiled into the Apache server, as well as we were using the C api for mysql. On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Scott Thompson wrote: > > > Some stats for you. Keep in mind that these are only for the webserver. > > Hits Bytes Visits PViews Month >8,891,404 58,798,965,869 211,007 1,528,073 Jun 2000 > 10,853,047 57,775,413,897 224,862 1,375,197 Jul 2000 >9,121,259 53,851,857,460 210,680 1,421,053 Aug 2000 > > Granted we have other clients, but I would guess that 60-80% of the > consumers are 'real estate interested'. > > > > We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with > > the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages > into > > ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The > > performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice > about Was PHP installed as a server module or as a CGI app? CGI PHP vs. CGI C of course the former is slower. I'd like to compare modphp vs CGI C in your setup. Best way of course would be to write your own dedicated server module in C. Best for performance, of course... .TM. -- / / / / / / Marco Colombo ___/ ___ / / Technical Manager / / / ESI s.r.l. _/ _/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MySQL vs. Postgres
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Scott Thompson wrote: > > > Some stats for you. Keep in mind that these are only for the webserver. > > Hits Bytes Visits PViews Month >8,891,404 58,798,965,869 211,007 1,528,073 Jun 2000 > 10,853,047 57,775,413,897 224,862 1,375,197 Jul 2000 >9,121,259 53,851,857,460 210,680 1,421,053 Aug 2000 > > Granted we have other clients, but I would guess that 60-80% of the > consumers are 'real estate interested'. > > > > We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with > > the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages > into > > ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The > > performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice > about Was PHP installed as a server module or as a CGI app? CGI PHP vs. CGI C of course the former is slower. I'd like to compare modphp vs CGI C in your setup. Best way of course would be to write your own dedicated server module in C. Best for performance, of course... .TM. -- / / / / / / Marco Colombo ___/ ___ / / Technical Manager / / / ESI s.r.l. _/ _/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MySQL vs. Postgres
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Scott Thompson wrote: > > > Some stats for you. Keep in mind that these are only for the webserver. > > Hits Bytes Visits PViews Month >8,891,404 58,798,965,869 211,007 1,528,073 Jun 2000 > 10,853,047 57,775,413,897 224,862 1,375,197 Jul 2000 >9,121,259 53,851,857,460 210,680 1,421,053 Aug 2000 > > Granted we have other clients, but I would guess that 60-80% of the > consumers are 'real estate interested'. > > > > We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with > > the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages > into > > ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The > > performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice > about Was PHP installed as a server module or as a CGI app? CGI PHP vs. CGI C of course the former is slower. I'd like to compare modphp vs CGI C in your setup. Best way of course would be to write your own dedicated server module in C. Best for performance, of course... .TM. -- / / / / / / Marco Colombo ___/ ___ / / Technical Manager / / / ESI s.r.l. _/ _/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
> Which file based database system is faster than mysql? I tried Berkeley > db3 (although with transaction code) and it was horrible slow! old one is fast. hmm i thought the new one was db2, uh, some glitch in my memory files. I've seen benchmarks comparing various db-databases (gdbm, ndbm etc) and there were some interesting thoughts about them, benchmarks were pre-new berkeley db. as far as I remeber ndbm provided best speed. It's widely known fact that new berkeley is slow and overloaded with features, I think there are some notices in db-based apps documentation ( htdig, i think ) Being realy paranoid about speed you could try cdb thing (constant) which need to be recreated every time you change anything there. regards, Eyck
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
> Which file based database system is faster than mysql? I tried Berkeley > db3 (although with transaction code) and it was horrible slow! old one is fast. hmm i thought the new one was db2, uh, some glitch in my memory files. I've seen benchmarks comparing various db-databases (gdbm, ndbm etc) and there were some interesting thoughts about them, benchmarks were pre-new berkeley db. as far as I remeber ndbm provided best speed. It's widely known fact that new berkeley is slow and overloaded with features, I think there are some notices in db-based apps documentation ( htdig, i think ) Being realy paranoid about speed you could try cdb thing (constant) which need to be recreated every time you change anything there. regards, Eyck -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
> > > postgres is using record-level locking, what does mysql do, is it > > locking the whole table ? what are rollbacks? what other advantages are > AFAIK mysql locks whole table, > rollback is term used with transaction - thing is, you put some sql > statements inside transaction, and one of them fail, you rollback all your > changes so your database is in consistent state. > This is very important thing especially in networked apps (and that's what > you need sql server for, don't you?). > I'm probably a little bit biassed against mysql, since in their docs they > talk about transactions like their useless and that's why they haven't > implement them ( and not because they don't know how ;). > And according to my knowledge transactions are one of the fundaments > of database programming. > I disagree with Eyck on this. I am a database programmer, have been since dBase II back in the early '80s. It all depends upon the application. Transactions are very, very useful under some circumstances, but if you can do without them, you can speed your database engine up a lot. Same thing with Foreign Keys, which MySQL does not support. If your application is going to be a large database with multiple tables that will need to be updated simultaneously, then Eyck is 100% correct, you need a database that supports transactions. However, most of the web based stuff I write does not require this. I am generally updating only one table at a time. In this case, I go MySQL to decrease my resource requirements. > > > there in using postgres instead of mysql ? > It's only my personal opinion postgres is more secure due to easier > administration and ability to define remote access permissions > easily and precisely. MySQL has a weird way of setting permissions, but once you figure it out your permissions are granular down to the user/table/action, which is what I get out of the "Big O" also. Point is (and I don't want to turn this into a religious argument), choose one. If you choose MySQL and find that it doesn't do what you want, change a few lines in your scripts (or, maybe an access module used by all your scripts) and turn on postgres. If you choose postgres and find it is too slow, and have optimized your queries and tables, do the same thing and go to MySQL. Your scripts should remain essentially the same, especially if you keep all db access scripts in one location. <---snip> Rod
RE: MySQL vs. Postgres
Some stats for you. Keep in mind that these are only for the webserver. Hits Bytes Visits PViews Month 8,891,404 58,798,965,869 211,007 1,528,073 Jun 2000 10,853,047 57,775,413,897 224,862 1,375,197 Jul 2000 9,121,259 53,851,857,460 210,680 1,421,053 Aug 2000 Granted we have other clients, but I would guess that 60-80% of the consumers are 'real estate interested'. > We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with > the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages into > ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The > performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice about Rather surprised by that, wonder what the hit rate was. On the web server I run which has been pretty busy at times (1GB served less than a week, daily access logs of 60-70MB), the php and apache usage was virtually undectable, p3 650 256MB. Basically DB access and network download times, swamped out anything that the PHP interpreter does. > mySQL is that it's load can get rather high if you have a large database. > (we have 5k records in a realestate database so there's a pile of fields too > that we have broken into 50 different tables to optimize the searches). > > If you plan on running a dynamic website, we aware of the following issues. > 1) You will need more horsepower that you likely think. (true in my > experience with this solution) > 2) Search engines will NOT index php pages or asp pages and the like nearly > as well as static pages. This is a big deal if you are looking for traffic > to this site. > 3) If you decided to go this way, offload the mySQL to a box on it's own, > you will see marked improvement. We moved ours to a 700 with 512 megs of ram > and it's almost acceptable. (we get a few searches a minute, not a lot, but > definately busy)
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
My workplace used php3 + mysql, then php3 + oracle, now looking at a combination of php3 + local mysql + master oracle db (the local mysql db's would act as caches for fast answers to most page queries). This is for scalability and availability reasons. php most commonly used with mysql, told by php dudes it's better supported, and php4 + mysql further the integration, projects cooperating. mysql are doing work on replicating the db which would be a nice thing to have for scalability. > We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with > the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages into > ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The > performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice about Rather surprised by that, wonder what the hit rate was. On the web server I run which has been pretty busy at times (1GB served less than a week, daily access logs of 60-70MB), the php and apache usage was virtually undectable, p3 650 256MB. Basically DB access and network download times, swamped out anything that the PHP interpreter does. > mySQL is that it's load can get rather high if you have a large database. > (we have 5k records in a realestate database so there's a pile of fields too > that we have broken into 50 different tables to optimize the searches). > > If you plan on running a dynamic website, we aware of the following issues. > 1) You will need more horsepower that you likely think. (true in my > experience with this solution) > 2) Search engines will NOT index php pages or asp pages and the like nearly > as well as static pages. This is a big deal if you are looking for traffic > to this site. > 3) If you decided to go this way, offload the mySQL to a box on it's own, > you will see marked improvement. We moved ours to a 700 with 512 megs of ram > and it's almost acceptable. (we get a few searches a minute, not a lot, but > definately busy)
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
On Wed, 30.08.00 18:02 +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote: > Hmm, if you need fast why use sql server? you could use databases > in files. they're fast, simple etc. Which file based database system is faster than mysql? I tried Berkeley db3 (although with transaction code) and it was horrible slow! bye, -chrstian- -- You know you're a nerd when your os uptime is longer than you've ever had a girlfriend. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
> > > postgres is using record-level locking, what does mysql do, is it > > locking the whole table ? what are rollbacks? what other advantages are > AFAIK mysql locks whole table, > rollback is term used with transaction - thing is, you put some sql > statements inside transaction, and one of them fail, you rollback all your > changes so your database is in consistent state. > This is very important thing especially in networked apps (and that's what > you need sql server for, don't you?). > I'm probably a little bit biassed against mysql, since in their docs they > talk about transactions like their useless and that's why they haven't > implement them ( and not because they don't know how ;). > And according to my knowledge transactions are one of the fundaments > of database programming. > I disagree with Eyck on this. I am a database programmer, have been since dBase II back in the early '80s. It all depends upon the application. Transactions are very, very useful under some circumstances, but if you can do without them, you can speed your database engine up a lot. Same thing with Foreign Keys, which MySQL does not support. If your application is going to be a large database with multiple tables that will need to be updated simultaneously, then Eyck is 100% correct, you need a database that supports transactions. However, most of the web based stuff I write does not require this. I am generally updating only one table at a time. In this case, I go MySQL to decrease my resource requirements. > > > there in using postgres instead of mysql ? > It's only my personal opinion postgres is more secure due to easier > administration and ability to define remote access permissions > easily and precisely. MySQL has a weird way of setting permissions, but once you figure it out your permissions are granular down to the user/table/action, which is what I get out of the "Big O" also. Point is (and I don't want to turn this into a religious argument), choose one. If you choose MySQL and find that it doesn't do what you want, change a few lines in your scripts (or, maybe an access module used by all your scripts) and turn on postgres. If you choose postgres and find it is too slow, and have optimized your queries and tables, do the same thing and go to MySQL. Your scripts should remain essentially the same, especially if you keep all db access scripts in one location. <---snip> Rod -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
> postgres is using record-level locking, what does mysql do, is it > locking the whole table ? what are rollbacks? what other advantages are AFAIK mysql locks whole table, rollback is term used with transaction - thing is, you put some sql statements inside transaction, and one of them fail, you rollback all your changes so your database is in consistent state. This is very important thing especially in networked apps (and that's what you need sql server for, don't you?). I'm probably a little bit biassed against mysql, since in their docs they talk about transactions like their useless and that's why they haven't implement them ( and not because they don't know how ;). And according to my knowledge transactions are one of the fundaments of database programming. > there in using postgres instead of mysql ? It's only my personal opinion postgres is more secure due to easier administration and ability to define remote access permissions easily and precisely. > are planing to set up some complex web apps. So what do you propose? > A solution would be to run postgres beside mysql on that server. they are both sql server, with postgres being more advanced and mysql being faster. There are only little differences in their sql ( there is book on postgresql being printed and accessible in pdf format at www.postgresql.org, which highlights any additions to SQL/92 standard so you can easily write SQL/92 conformant apps ) so it should be fairly easy to port all apps to postgres. Of course it's easy to rewrite int(11) to SQL/92 sql type, but when you do that on 100 customers apps it could be a major pain in ass. Little note about speed - you gain much more speed by proper setup (indices on other disks that actuall data, proper transactions, smartly using subselects and things like that. ) that by using simplier sql server. But you already know that first thing to optimize is an algorithm not the compiler. > and what do you propose for bigger sql apsp with permanent database > usage. php , apache-module (perl or c), cgi ? what experience do you have > with the performance ? I've been doing some apps in php3 and asp with sql on oracle. also cgi in perl and c. CGI generaly is very slow thing, no metter if you use perl,c or asm. but that's known fact. If you want to be fast you use things like mod-perl or interpreters like php or asp. Based on my knowledge and experience the fastest solution are pure mod-perl apps. but they're hard to impelement. My favourite solution is Apache::Asp module, with which you get transparent permanent database connections packaged with ease of development and top-notch performance. Second best solution would be php4 compiled with zend. You probably already know that php4/zend is faster than asp. php3 is slower. Probably, because differences ain't that big, maybe I've seen bad benchmarks. For me it's easier to deploy perl-based solution then php-one, but php-programmers are easy to buy and they're cheap. there ain't that much perl hackers outhere, although perl is very easy to learn. Although I have quite a lot of arguments to use perl and asp to build web apps, argument about cheap programmers is very important and you can't overlook it. Maybe situation is different where you live. There is also another fast and advanced solution which is aolserver. It's multithreaded (thing you get with apache 2.0 if you're brave, but aolserver is stable, been multithreaded for like years..), the only issue is programmers - If you can easily get people to programm in scheme or lisp ( i think that's aolserver's scripting language.. maybe I've mistaken it with sth more exotic ). And here you've got the same issue as with perl - aolserver is fast, scheme is quite easy to learn ( it took me two days to learn it enough to pass some exams, and I must say that it wasn't luck, I actually learned it ) but you can't find scheme programmers out on the street. But if you can, check out aolserver. There are also things like Oracle Application Server, which is extremely slow, probably due to overusage of Corba technology. To sum things up - php4+apache+postgres would be the cheapest and most promising solution (php is evolving quickly, it is already quite nice tool, although you get the feeling of using something young and not very mature) - asp+apache+postgres - you get very fast development, ability to tune your instalation as much as you want, all the nice stuff like sessions, transparent persistent database connections ( you write normal code, but Apache::ASP keeps cache of connections and gives you already connected handle without you knowing anything about it happening ). You get all numerous perl modules. And it's real programming language. But first you must find programmers who can write the code or are willing to learn. and perl is very RAM-hungry. - php3+apache+mysql - with that setup you're set up. it's most common
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
hi, Sorry, not that familiar with sql servers. postgres is using record-level locking, what does mysql do, is it locking the whole table ? what are rollbacks? what other advantages are there in using postgres instead of mysql ? i maintain a small hosting server, that runs mysql (beside apache, exim etc) but as the traffic is getting higher we think about setting up a dedicated database server. Our customers mainly use mysql, but we are planing to set up some complex web apps. So what do you propose? A solution would be to run postgres beside mysql on that server. and what do you propose for bigger sql apsp with permanent database usage. php , apache-module (perl or c), cgi ? what experience do you have with the performance ? kind regards, achim hendriks < > If you don't need record-level locking, rollbacks, etc. then I would > recommend MySQL, simply because it's very fast. Hmm, if you need fast why use sql server? you could use databases in files. they're fast, simple etc. If you need to create apps based on SQL you will need transactions, and record-level locking 'll make them fast. And for that you need something advanced like postgresql. OTOH most simple things assume that you use mysql, so your users would prefer mysql. most php apps need apache+php3+mysql. regards, Eyck. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MySQL vs. Postgres
Some stats for you. Keep in mind that these are only for the webserver. Hits Bytes Visits PViews Month 8,891,404 58,798,965,869 211,007 1,528,073 Jun 2000 10,853,047 57,775,413,897 224,862 1,375,197 Jul 2000 9,121,259 53,851,857,460 210,680 1,421,053 Aug 2000 Granted we have other clients, but I would guess that 60-80% of the consumers are 'real estate interested'. > We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with > the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages into > ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The > performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice about Rather surprised by that, wonder what the hit rate was. On the web server I run which has been pretty busy at times (1GB served less than a week, daily access logs of 60-70MB), the php and apache usage was virtually undectable, p3 650 256MB. Basically DB access and network download times, swamped out anything that the PHP interpreter does. > mySQL is that it's load can get rather high if you have a large database. > (we have 5k records in a realestate database so there's a pile of fields too > that we have broken into 50 different tables to optimize the searches). > > If you plan on running a dynamic website, we aware of the following issues. > 1) You will need more horsepower that you likely think. (true in my > experience with this solution) > 2) Search engines will NOT index php pages or asp pages and the like nearly > as well as static pages. This is a big deal if you are looking for traffic > to this site. > 3) If you decided to go this way, offload the mySQL to a box on it's own, > you will see marked improvement. We moved ours to a 700 with 512 megs of ram > and it's almost acceptable. (we get a few searches a minute, not a lot, but > definately busy) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
My workplace used php3 + mysql, then php3 + oracle, now looking at a combination of php3 + local mysql + master oracle db (the local mysql db's would act as caches for fast answers to most page queries). This is for scalability and availability reasons. php most commonly used with mysql, told by php dudes it's better supported, and php4 + mysql further the integration, projects cooperating. mysql are doing work on replicating the db which would be a nice thing to have for scalability. > We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with > the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages into > ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The > performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice about Rather surprised by that, wonder what the hit rate was. On the web server I run which has been pretty busy at times (1GB served less than a week, daily access logs of 60-70MB), the php and apache usage was virtually undectable, p3 650 256MB. Basically DB access and network download times, swamped out anything that the PHP interpreter does. > mySQL is that it's load can get rather high if you have a large database. > (we have 5k records in a realestate database so there's a pile of fields too > that we have broken into 50 different tables to optimize the searches). > > If you plan on running a dynamic website, we aware of the following issues. > 1) You will need more horsepower that you likely think. (true in my > experience with this solution) > 2) Search engines will NOT index php pages or asp pages and the like nearly > as well as static pages. This is a big deal if you are looking for traffic > to this site. > 3) If you decided to go this way, offload the mySQL to a box on it's own, > you will see marked improvement. We moved ours to a 700 with 512 megs of ram > and it's almost acceptable. (we get a few searches a minute, not a lot, but > definately busy) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
On Wed, 30.08.00 18:02 +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote: > Hmm, if you need fast why use sql server? you could use databases > in files. they're fast, simple etc. Which file based database system is faster than mysql? I tried Berkeley db3 (although with transaction code) and it was horrible slow! bye, -chrstian- -- You know you're a nerd when your os uptime is longer than you've ever had a girlfriend. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
> postgres is using record-level locking, what does mysql do, is it > locking the whole table ? what are rollbacks? what other advantages are AFAIK mysql locks whole table, rollback is term used with transaction - thing is, you put some sql statements inside transaction, and one of them fail, you rollback all your changes so your database is in consistent state. This is very important thing especially in networked apps (and that's what you need sql server for, don't you?). I'm probably a little bit biassed against mysql, since in their docs they talk about transactions like their useless and that's why they haven't implement them ( and not because they don't know how ;). And according to my knowledge transactions are one of the fundaments of database programming. > there in using postgres instead of mysql ? It's only my personal opinion postgres is more secure due to easier administration and ability to define remote access permissions easily and precisely. > are planing to set up some complex web apps. So what do you propose? > A solution would be to run postgres beside mysql on that server. they are both sql server, with postgres being more advanced and mysql being faster. There are only little differences in their sql ( there is book on postgresql being printed and accessible in pdf format at www.postgresql.org, which highlights any additions to SQL/92 standard so you can easily write SQL/92 conformant apps ) so it should be fairly easy to port all apps to postgres. Of course it's easy to rewrite int(11) to SQL/92 sql type, but when you do that on 100 customers apps it could be a major pain in ass. Little note about speed - you gain much more speed by proper setup (indices on other disks that actuall data, proper transactions, smartly using subselects and things like that. ) that by using simplier sql server. But you already know that first thing to optimize is an algorithm not the compiler. > and what do you propose for bigger sql apsp with permanent database > usage. php , apache-module (perl or c), cgi ? what experience do you have > with the performance ? I've been doing some apps in php3 and asp with sql on oracle. also cgi in perl and c. CGI generaly is very slow thing, no metter if you use perl,c or asm. but that's known fact. If you want to be fast you use things like mod-perl or interpreters like php or asp. Based on my knowledge and experience the fastest solution are pure mod-perl apps. but they're hard to impelement. My favourite solution is Apache::Asp module, with which you get transparent permanent database connections packaged with ease of development and top-notch performance. Second best solution would be php4 compiled with zend. You probably already know that php4/zend is faster than asp. php3 is slower. Probably, because differences ain't that big, maybe I've seen bad benchmarks. For me it's easier to deploy perl-based solution then php-one, but php-programmers are easy to buy and they're cheap. there ain't that much perl hackers outhere, although perl is very easy to learn. Although I have quite a lot of arguments to use perl and asp to build web apps, argument about cheap programmers is very important and you can't overlook it. Maybe situation is different where you live. There is also another fast and advanced solution which is aolserver. It's multithreaded (thing you get with apache 2.0 if you're brave, but aolserver is stable, been multithreaded for like years..), the only issue is programmers - If you can easily get people to programm in scheme or lisp ( i think that's aolserver's scripting language.. maybe I've mistaken it with sth more exotic ). And here you've got the same issue as with perl - aolserver is fast, scheme is quite easy to learn ( it took me two days to learn it enough to pass some exams, and I must say that it wasn't luck, I actually learned it ) but you can't find scheme programmers out on the street. But if you can, check out aolserver. There are also things like Oracle Application Server, which is extremely slow, probably due to overusage of Corba technology. To sum things up - php4+apache+postgres would be the cheapest and most promising solution (php is evolving quickly, it is already quite nice tool, although you get the feeling of using something young and not very mature) - asp+apache+postgres - you get very fast development, ability to tune your instalation as much as you want, all the nice stuff like sessions, transparent persistent database connections ( you write normal code, but Apache::ASP keeps cache of connections and gives you already connected handle without you knowing anything about it happening ). You get all numerous perl modules. And it's real programming language. But first you must find programmers who can write the code or are willing to learn. and perl is very RAM-hungry. - php3+apache+mysql - with that setup you're set up. it's most commo
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
hi, Sorry, not that familiar with sql servers. postgres is using record-level locking, what does mysql do, is it locking the whole table ? what are rollbacks? what other advantages are there in using postgres instead of mysql ? i maintain a small hosting server, that runs mysql (beside apache, exim etc) but as the traffic is getting higher we think about setting up a dedicated database server. Our customers mainly use mysql, but we are planing to set up some complex web apps. So what do you propose? A solution would be to run postgres beside mysql on that server. and what do you propose for bigger sql apsp with permanent database usage. php , apache-module (perl or c), cgi ? what experience do you have with the performance ? kind regards, achim hendriks < > If you don't need record-level locking, rollbacks, etc. then I would > recommend MySQL, simply because it's very fast. Hmm, if you need fast why use sql server? you could use databases in files. they're fast, simple etc. If you need to create apps based on SQL you will need transactions, and record-level locking 'll make them fast. And for that you need something advanced like postgresql. OTOH most simple things assume that you use mysql, so your users would prefer mysql. most php apps need apache+php3+mysql. regards, Eyck. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MySQL vs. Postgres
We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages into ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice about mySQL is that it's load can get rather high if you have a large database. (we have 5k records in a realestate database so there's a pile of fields too that we have broken into 50 different tables to optimize the searches). If you plan on running a dynamic website, we aware of the following issues. 1) You will need more horsepower that you likely think. (true in my experience with this solution) 2) Search engines will NOT index php pages or asp pages and the like nearly as well as static pages. This is a big deal if you are looking for traffic to this site. 3) If you decided to go this way, offload the mySQL to a box on it's own, you will see marked improvement. We moved ours to a 700 with 512 megs of ram and it's almost acceptable. (we get a few searches a minute, not a lot, but definately busy) My 2 and a half cents Scott Thompson Programming & Server Admin Internet Brokers Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.internetbrokers.ab.ca Office: (403) 232-1032 Fax: (403) 265-2843 -Original Message- From: Arno Vije [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 9:35 AM To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org Subject: MySQL vs. Postgres Hi, where setting up some servers for a small ISP, they want to have a SQL database, but i`m in doubt. Which one would you recommend, mysql or postgres? The SQL database will be used in combination with PHP3 (or 4) to generate dynamic websites. greets, ::: (o 0) +|||_o_|||-+ | Arno Vije| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | www.linuxinfo.nl | +--v---v---+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
> If you don't need record-level locking, rollbacks, etc. then I would > recommend MySQL, simply because it's very fast. Hmm, if you need fast why use sql server? you could use databases in files. they're fast, simple etc. If you need to create apps based on SQL you will need transactions, and record-level locking 'll make them fast. And for that you need something advanced like postgresql. OTOH most simple things assume that you use mysql, so your users would prefer mysql. most php apps need apache+php3+mysql. regards, Eyck.
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 06:34:54PM +0200, Arno Vije wrote: > where setting up some servers for a small ISP, > they want to have a SQL database, but i`m in > doubt. Which one would you recommend, mysql or postgres? > The SQL database will be used in combination with PHP3 (or 4) > to generate dynamic websites. If you don't need record-level locking, rollbacks, etc. then I would recommend MySQL, simply because it's very fast. -- Art Sackett
RE: MySQL vs. Postgres
We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages into ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice about mySQL is that it's load can get rather high if you have a large database. (we have 5k records in a realestate database so there's a pile of fields too that we have broken into 50 different tables to optimize the searches). If you plan on running a dynamic website, we aware of the following issues. 1) You will need more horsepower that you likely think. (true in my experience with this solution) 2) Search engines will NOT index php pages or asp pages and the like nearly as well as static pages. This is a big deal if you are looking for traffic to this site. 3) If you decided to go this way, offload the mySQL to a box on it's own, you will see marked improvement. We moved ours to a 700 with 512 megs of ram and it's almost acceptable. (we get a few searches a minute, not a lot, but definately busy) My 2 and a half cents Scott Thompson Programming & Server Admin Internet Brokers Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.internetbrokers.ab.ca Office: (403) 232-1032 Fax: (403) 265-2843 -Original Message- From: Arno Vije [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 9:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MySQL vs. Postgres Hi, where setting up some servers for a small ISP, they want to have a SQL database, but i`m in doubt. Which one would you recommend, mysql or postgres? The SQL database will be used in combination with PHP3 (or 4) to generate dynamic websites. greets, ::: (o 0) +|||_o_|||-+ | Arno Vije| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | www.linuxinfo.nl | +--v---v---+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
> If you don't need record-level locking, rollbacks, etc. then I would > recommend MySQL, simply because it's very fast. Hmm, if you need fast why use sql server? you could use databases in files. they're fast, simple etc. If you need to create apps based on SQL you will need transactions, and record-level locking 'll make them fast. And for that you need something advanced like postgresql. OTOH most simple things assume that you use mysql, so your users would prefer mysql. most php apps need apache+php3+mysql. regards, Eyck. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 06:34:54PM +0200, Arno Vije wrote: > where setting up some servers for a small ISP, > they want to have a SQL database, but i`m in > doubt. Which one would you recommend, mysql or postgres? > The SQL database will be used in combination with PHP3 (or 4) > to generate dynamic websites. If you don't need record-level locking, rollbacks, etc. then I would recommend MySQL, simply because it's very fast. -- Art Sackett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
