Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance

2005-06-04 Thread Zlatko Calusic
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Also, I wonder how well both databases will survive having power removed > while under heavy load... It depends more on the underlying hardware setup (disk/raid array) than on the any other aspect (like OS). Assuming you have fsync enabled, of course.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance

2005-06-04 Thread Zlatko Calusic
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Colombo) > belched out: >> On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 11:38 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> Am Freitag, 3. Juni 2005 00:36 schrieb Peter Eisentraut: >>> > On a particular system, load

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance

2005-06-03 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 04:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Freitag, 3. Juni 2005 00:36 schrieb Peter Eisentraut: > > 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 tak

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance

2005-06-03 Thread Marco Colombo
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 08:43 -0400, Christopher Browne wrote: > After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Colombo) > belched out: > > The hardware seems to be the bottleneck. Try improving the performance > > of your disk systems. It's very unlikely to get _exactly_ the sam

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance

2005-06-03 Thread Leonardo Francalanci
Have a look at Mysql gotchas... http://sql-info.de/mysql/database-definition.html#2_4 So here's another little gem about our friends from Uppsala: If you create a table with InnoDB storage and your server does not have InnoDB configured, it falls back to MyISAM without telling you. As i

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance

2005-06-03 Thread Christopher Browne
After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Colombo) belched out: > On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 11:38 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Am Freitag, 3. Juni 2005 00:36 schrieb Peter Eisentraut: >> > On a particular system, loading 1 million rows (100 bytes, nothing >> > fancy) into

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance

2005-06-03 Thread Marco Colombo
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 11:38 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Freitag, 3. Juni 2005 00:36 schrieb Peter Eisentraut: > > 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/Inno

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance

2005-06-03 Thread Jochem van Dieten
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

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance

2005-06-03 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Freitag, 3. Juni 2005 00:36 schrieb Peter Eisentraut: > 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 l

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance

2005-06-02 Thread Tino Wildenhain
Am Freitag, den 03.06.2005, 00:36 +0200 schrieb Peter Eisentraut: > 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

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance

2005-06-02 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Something ain't kosher. I tried the same test with the latest and greatest DBI, DBD::Pg, and PostgreSQL, tuned everything up, and still got around 10,000 transactions per minute or so. There is no way MySQL is doing an order of magnitude or more bett

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance

2005-06-02 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. What sort of hardware, exactly? Simple division s

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance

2005-06-02 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:36:29AM +0200, 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 s

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance

2005-06-02 Thread Joshua D. Drake
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 th

[GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. InnoDB performance

2005-06-02 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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 concer