List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:David Griffiths Date:March 3 2004 7:39pm
Subject:Re: PgSQL vs MySQL
View as plain text  
We did benchmarking, with identical schemas on identical hardware.

Second, we use InnoDB, which does have constraints, transactions and row
locking. Not sure where this significnatly out-dated idea that MySQL has no
data integrity comes from, but it's false if you use BDB or InnoDB. It will
soon be false for MyISAM as well.

I found MySQL (both MyISAM and InnoDB) simpler in that it's setup more
closely corresponded to other software I was familiar with. MySQL is as
simple as you need to be. You have the option of tweaking advanced variables
if you need to. I spent alot of time reading up on PostgresQL performance
tuning, and was surprised at how little was known. For example, this page,

http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/annotated_conf_e.html

is linked to frequently in the PostgresQL mailing lists as a good resource
for performance tuning. Some of the parameters discussed include
random_page_cost, cpu_tuple_cost, cpu_index_tuple_cost, and
cpu_operator_cost. The explanation? "The default costs are based entirely on
anecdotal experience, and are probably not ideal for your system". In fact,
many of the parameters have a comment attached stating that you have to run
alot of queries to figure out the right balance, and that finding the "...
the right balance spot can be hard." (that quote is from the sort_mem
parameter comment).

Our database evolves fairly quickly (a few changes a month). We don't have
time to re-test any query that might be affected by adding columns to a
table, altering columns in a table, etc. The optimizer in PostgresQL is it's
achilles heel. Do a search on the PostgresQL site for "optimizer index" and
see how often the optimizer makes the wrong choice. I have yet to see a case
where MySQL could have used an index but did not.

InnoDB is MyQL. MySQL offeres multiple persistence engines - InnoDB, MyISAM
(ISAM), heap, and BDB. It is shipped by default with MySQL.

David

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Kelty" <james_kelty@stripped>
To: <mysql@stripped>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:51 AM
Subject: RE: PgSQL vs MySQL


> As a DBA I have a few questions about what you said here.
>
> You have worked with both PostgreSQL and MySQL, and yet you say that MySQL
> is 'signifigantly' faster than Oracle? Can you PROVE that? And how is it
> faster to chase down data problems when MySQL has no native constraints in
> it data design?
>
> Wouldn't you think that since MySQL is 'simpler' to set up and configure
> that it just lends itself to poor design principles and that you will
> constantly be fighting with it after a point? Or migrating to something
> else?
>
> Can't argue with the third point at all.
>
> In all of this, isn't it really InnoDB that you like, and not MySQL
> specifically?
>
> -James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Griffiths [mailto:dgriffiths@stripped]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:28 AM
> To: david.best@stripped; Mark Warner; mysql@stripped
> Subject: Re: PgSQL vs MySQL
>
> As a DBA and someone who has worked both with PostgresQL and MySQL, I
think
> I can answer this knowingly.
>
> First, MySQL is significantly faster than PostgresQL and Oracle.
>
> Second, MySQL is also a simpler database to set up and configure.
>
> Third, the documentation is better, and there are far more third party
books
> out there.
>
> Fourth, MySQL has a more impressive list of customers. Yes, there are some
> large PostgresQL customers (the .org domain system?), but none like Yahoo
> and Slashdot.
>
> MySQL does not have triggers, stored procedures or views yet. Sub-selects
> should be out in six months.
>
> After fighting with PostgresQL to try to get it to use indexes, rewriting
> tonnes of queries, and still getting poor performance, I gave up on it. I
> prefer MySQL with InnoDB.
>
> Some of the gotcha's are valid, and others can be found in any database.
> Forewarned is forearmed.
>
> David.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <david.best@stripped>
> To: "Mark Warner" <hammerhed@stripped>;
<mysql@stripped>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 6:51 AM
> Subject: Re: PgSQL vs MySQL
>
>
> >
> > > What advantages, besides ease of setup, does MySQL hold over
PostgreSQL?
> > > It would seem, to me, that the two are close competitors (both in
> > > quality, and performance).
> >
> > Are you sure about quality?  Check out:
> >
> > http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html
> >
> > You can check out postgresql's on the same site but they are
significally
> less critical.   After reviewing this and talking to some other people i'm
> switching over to postgresql.   I'm sure there is a place with mysql but I
> don't think i'd trust it for anything critical unless you very confident
> your developers know what they are doing.
> >
> >
> > --
> > MySQL General Mailing List
> > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> > To unsubscribe:
http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1
>
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe:
> http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1
>
>
>
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe:    http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1
Thread
PgSQL vs MySQLMark Warner3 Mar
Re: PgSQL vs MySQLdavid.best3 Mar
  • Re: PgSQL vs MySQLMark Warner3 Mar
    • Re: PgSQL vs MySQLCurtis Maurand3 Mar
      • Re: PgSQL vs MySQLRay3 Mar
      • Re: PgSQL vs MySQLMichael Stassen3 Mar
        • Re: PgSQL vs MySQLKevin Williams3 Mar
        • Re: PgSQL vs MySQLCurtis Maurand3 Mar
  • Re: PgSQL vs MySQLDavid Griffiths3 Mar
    • RE: PgSQL vs MySQLJames Kelty3 Mar
    • RE: PgSQL vs MySQLJeremy Smith3 Mar
      • Re: PgSQL vs MySQLKaarel13 Mar
  • Re: PgSQL vs MySQLKaren Abgarian3 Mar
  • Re: PgSQL vs MySQLDavid Griffiths3 Mar
    • Re: PgSQL vs MySQLMark Warner3 Mar
Re: PgSQL vs MySQLEric @ Zomething3 Mar
  • Re: PgSQL vs MySQLMartijn Tonies3 Mar
Re: PgSQL vs MySQLDavid Griffiths3 Mar
Re: PgSQL vs MySQLJeremy Zawodny3 Mar