Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
> I'm not saying (and never did say) that postgres could not be fast. > All I ever said was that with the same minimal effort applied to both > DBs, postgres was slower. Afaik, your original posting said postgresql was 3 times slower than mysql and that you are going to leave this list now. This implied that you have made your decision between postgresql and mysql, taking mysql because it is faster. Now you say your testing setup has minimal effort applied. Well, it is not very surprising that mysql is faster in standard configurations. As Shridhar pointed out, postgresql has very conservative default values, so that it starts on nearly every machine. If I was your client and gave you the task to choose a suitable database for my application and you evaluated suitable databases this way, then something is seriously wrong with your work. Regards, Bjoern ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
>> Afaik, your original posting said postgresql was 3 times slower than >> mysql and that you are going to leave this list now. This implied >> that you have made your decision between postgresql and mysql, >> taking mysql because it is faster. > > Well, that shows what you get for making implications. The client is > sticking with postgres and we are coding around the issue in other > ways. As many other guys here pointed out, there are numerous ways to tune postgresql for maximum performance. If you are willing to share more information about your particular project, we might be able to help you out and optimize your application, without the need to code around the issue as much as you may be doing right now. Even if it is not possible for you to share enough information, there are a lot of places where you can read about performance tuning (if not in the docs then in the archives). >> If I was your client and gave you the task to choose a suitable >> database for my application and you evaluated suitable databases >> this way, then something is seriously wrong with your work. >> > Glad to see you're not getting personal with this. Ad hominin attacks > are for folks with no better answers. Yep, you're right. Sorry for that, I didn't mean to get personal. I was somehow irritated that you come here, post your database comparison and want to leave right afterwards, without going into detail (what should be the case normally). Again our offer: Post (possibly obfuscated) schema information, and we will certainly be able to help you with performance tuning. Regards, Bjoern ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [PERFORM] Perfomance Tuning
> be able to handle at least 8M at a time. The machine has > two P III 933MHz CPU's, 1.128G RAM (512M*2 + 128M), and > a 36 Gig hd with 1 Gig swap and 3 equal size ext3 partitions. > What would be the recomended setup for good performance > considering that the db will have about 15 users for > 9 hours in a day, and about 10 or so users throughout the day > who wont be conistenly using the db. For 15 users you won't need great tuning at all. Just make sure, that you have the right indizes on the tables and that you have good queries (query plan). About the 8Meg blobs, I don't know. Other people on this list may be able to give you hints here. Regards, Bjoern ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
