Re: Fast DB access

[Joe Brenner <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu>]

artlore@sirius.com wrote:

> Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> 
> > I'm on several postgresql mailing lists and couldn't find a recent post
> > from you complaining about 6.5.3 performance problems (not even by an
> > archive search). Your benchmark is worthless until you try postgresql
> > 7.1. There have been two major releases of postgresql since 6.5.x (ie.
> > 7.0 and 7.1) and several minor ones over a total of 2-3 years. It's no
> > secret that they have tremendous performance improvements over 6.5.x. So
> > why did you benchmark 6.5.x?
> >
> > This is a good comparison of MySQL and PostgreSQL 7.0:
> >
> > "Open Source Databases: As The Tables Turn" --
> > http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20001112.php3

> > >  We haven't tried this one. We are doing a project on
> > >  mysql. Our preliminary assessment is, it's a shocker. They
> > >  justify not having commit and rollback!! Makes us think
> > >  whether they are even lower end than MS-Access.

> > Again, checkout PostgreSQL 7.1 -- I believe "commit" and "rollback" (as
> > you put it) are available. BTW, I would like to see that comment about
> > MS-Access posted to pgsql-general... I dare ya. :P

> You can scale any of these databases; Oracle, MySQL or
> PostgreSQL, but please research each one thoroughly and tune
> it properly before you do your benchmarking.  

I have a different proposal, why don't you do default
installations and avoid tuning any of them?  If you're going 
to benchmark something, benchmark what people are actually 
using.

> And, again, MySQL does support transactions now. 

Actually, what they did is they bolted on another database 
on the side of MySQL.  So if you want transactions, you're 
really going to be using the Berkley DB, and MySQL's much 
vaunted speed is presumably out the window..

> Such chutzpah for them
> to have promoted an "atomic operations" paradigm for so long
> without supporting transactions! But that discussion is moot
> now.

"Chutzpah" is an interesting way of putting it.  I've been thinking
of them as "slimeballs in the busy of conning webkids into
thinking they have a real RDBM product".  

(It isn't a moot point, because it's the same people working on
it: human character issues are actually relevant when making
technical decisions.)

> Please be advised that MySQL is threaded and must be tuned
> properly to handle many concurrent users on Linux. See the
> docs at http://www.mysql.com 

That's a good idea.  They wouldn't lie to you again, would they? 

> The author of the PHP Builder
> column did not do his research, so his results for MySQL on
> Linux are way off.  Happily, though, even he got some decent
> results from PostgreSQL 7.0.

Hm, Great Bridge ran industry standard benchmarks 
of mysql and postgresql, and found that postgresql was 
faster even on the read-only tests that are supposed to be
MySql's bread-and-butter.  But I think the Mysql guys 
said that that was a "tuning" problem also. 

Re: Fast DB access

[Murali V <mu...@diffsoft.com>]

We fully support this view.

Why Databases... just read this mail.
There are only 2 tracks
a) Totally off-track discussing oracle.
b) Other track.... making us defend our benchmarks.(Wish we had not used the
word benchmark)

People are saying either this benchmark is bad or all benchmarks are
useless.

I get a feeling that the point we were trying to make is going to be missed.
MLDBM is not a bad alternative to databases under specific conditions !!

Murali
----- Original Message -----
From: Perrin Harkins <pe...@elem.com>
To: <mo...@apache.org>; Joe Brenner <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 4:13 AM
Subject: Re: Fast DB access


> > "Chutzpah" is an interesting way of putting it.  I've been thinking
> > of them as "slimeballs in the busy of conning webkids into
> > thinking they have a real RDBM product".
> >
> > (It isn't a moot point, because it's the same people working on
> > it: human character issues are actually relevant when making
> > technical decisions.)
>
> Why does discussion of databases - possibly the most boring subject on the
> planet - always degenerate to name-calling?
>
> MySQL is an excellent solution for a wide range of problems, as are dbm
> files and flat files.  The developers give the code away for free, and do
> not hide the fact that it doesn't support transactions.  There's no need
for
> this kind of vitriol.
>
> - Perrin
>

Re: Fast DB access

[Robert Landrum <rl...@capitoladvantage.com>]

At 3:43 PM -0700 4/18/01, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> > "Chutzpah" is an interesting way of putting it.  I've been thinking
>> of them as "slimeballs in the busy of conning webkids into
>> thinking they have a real RDBM product".
>>
>> (It isn't a moot point, because it's the same people working on
>> it: human character issues are actually relevant when making
>> technical decisions.)
>
>Why does discussion of databases - possibly the most boring subject on the
>planet - always degenerate to name-calling?

GAS.  It's like MAS (Male Answer Syndrom), but for Geeks.  Basically, 
it's the belief that the knowledge you possess is superior to that of 
your fellow colleague's, and thereby forces you to make a complete 
ass of yourself.

Example: this message.

Rob



>MySQL is an excellent solution for a wide range of problems, as are dbm
>files and flat files.  The developers give the code away for free, and do
>not hide the fact that it doesn't support transactions.  There's no need for
>this kind of vitriol.
>
>- Perrin


--
As soon as you make something foolproof, someone will create a better fool.

Re: Fast DB access

[Perrin Harkins <pe...@elem.com>]

> "Chutzpah" is an interesting way of putting it.  I've been thinking
> of them as "slimeballs in the busy of conning webkids into
> thinking they have a real RDBM product".
>
> (It isn't a moot point, because it's the same people working on
> it: human character issues are actually relevant when making
> technical decisions.)

Why does discussion of databases - possibly the most boring subject on the
planet - always degenerate to name-calling?

MySQL is an excellent solution for a wide range of problems, as are dbm
files and flat files.  The developers give the code away for free, and do
not hide the fact that it doesn't support transactions.  There's no need for
this kind of vitriol.

- Perrin