Comments on: MySQL vs PostgreSQL Benchmarks

By: admin

admin — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 07:39:26 +0000

I will try to finish another set of benchmarks, but I need some time for that. Anyway thanks for comment.

By: Anuraag G

Anuraag G — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:44:03 +0000

The absolute best benchmark article I have read comparing mysql versus postgresql. Sure, there could be improvements, as people have suggested. But the attention to details in your post is amazing.

I wish if you could find time to redo the benchmark with latest versions of the databases – 5.6 for MySql and 9.x for PG.

By: ALEX

ALEX — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:26:42 +0000

Topic Starter, for operation “bulk insert” in postgresql
must be used COPY operation(see fu*king manual).
It have someone nuances, but ACID has been observed.
PS
Sorry for my english.
I went to shoot the bears.

By: Eric Gillette

Eric Gillette — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:40:57 +0000

Nice comparison, but it does seem a little skewed towards PostGreSQL.

LOL!

I think the performance benefits of a properly tuned InnoDB MySQL Database would seriously kill PostGreSQL.

This isn’t to say PostGreSQL doesn’t have a place — I think it’s best used for back-end applications and/or intranet systems.

But for modern day database-driven websites, I think MySQL is the clear choice since speed is one of the most important factors on a website.

By: vicsanca

vicsanca — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 07:30:50 +0000

You need autovacuum to be disabled to make comparison with mysql. bulk operations are surely slower caused by vacuuming.

By: admin

admin — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:36:13 +0000

Thanks Pino for your suggestions. I’m agree with you, every project can have it’s own requirements, and just chose the DB what is suitable for you and your project.

By: Pino

Pino — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 13:48:49 +0000

For a recent project we have chosen for PostgreSQL, because it has better support for stored procedures. It gives better control over constraints. The type system is strong and let you extend the type system. It combines good with Haskell (our primary server language), which also features a strong and extendable type system. I find the two pleasantly alike. It has better developed extensions. (Like PostGIS).

But MySQL is simpler to use, which makes it suitable for rapid prototyping.

Performance is not the only thing, what counts. If that was the case, we would all go to custom data types or NoSQL Databases, thereby dropping all the wonderful tools relational databases gives us.

And even if performance is the main issue, we can transform the offending parts of the system into better performing ones.

Profile, optimize and eventually rewrite.

By: Whose is the future آینده از آن کیست | دنیای فناوری اطلاعات

Whose is the future آینده از آن کیست | دنیای فناوری اطلاعات — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:39:06 +0000

[...] با چند تغییر دیگر به کارایی خود افزوده. اطلاعات بیشتر، مقایسه MySQL و PostgreSql، آینده DBMS درصد غالب سیستم های مدیریت محتوا متن باز [...]

By: DotCom

DotCom — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:35:36 +0000

i have used mysql for many years now. I always preffered innodb over myisam. Now i’m using postgre sql because of one thing: full text searching. I can’t beleive that transactional engine like innodb doesn’t have this support. Anyway, i also noticed that my websites run faster with postgre sql and php PDO under high load.

Sure, postgre is harder to learn, it’s more complex, but it’s worth it. If this benchmarks are true, it’s worlds most advanced and now the fastest database.

By: Ganesh

Ganesh — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 23:37:30 +0000

Sorry, i can’t forget Mysql