From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance |
Date: | 2005-06-02 22:44:03 |
Message-ID: | 429F8BB3.90801@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On a particular system, loading 1 million rows (100 bytes, nothing
> fancy) into PostgreSQL one transaction at a time takes about 90
> minutes.
Doing the same in MySQL/InnoDB takes about 3 minutes. InnoDB
> is supposed to have a similar level of functionality as far as the
> storage manager is concerned, so I'm puzzled about how this can be.
> Does anyone know whether InnoDB is taking some kind of questionable
> shortcuts it doesn't tell me about?
What about fsync/opensync and wal segments?
What happens if we turn off fsync entirely?
The client interface is DBI. This
> particular test is supposed to simulate a lot of transactions happening
> in a short time, so turning off autocommit is not relevant.
>
> As you might imagine, it's hard to argue when the customer sees these
> kinds of numbers. So I'd take any FUD I can send back at them. :)
>
--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2005-06-03 00:05:32 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-06-02 22:36:29 | PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance |