Mailing List Archive

Hi!

>> What do you think about running postgress vs mysql and how difficult would
>> it be to change from Mysql to postgress.

Jeff> The postgres versus mysql used to be very cut and dried. Mysql was fast
Jeff> as heck, you would only use postgres if you needed transaction support.
Jeff> Now, with postgres 7, every indication I have personally seen and every
Jeff> discussion I have read on the issue indicates that postgres 7 runs circles
Jeff> around mysql from a speed perspective. I don't really see mysql going
Jeff> anywhere at this point, adding in transactional support would be the next
Jeff> logical step but apparently one the development team is not willing to make
Jeff> and it would certainly come at a serious performance price. The only issue
Jeff> I have ever encountered with postgres is a lack of blob support but that is
Jeff> not relevant to interchange.


We just released the next release version of MySQL, 3.23 and it has a
lot of new major features including support for BDB tables, which
gives us transaction. It's true that MySQL don't have all features
that PostgreSQL has, but it's also true that PostgreSQL doesn't have
all the features that MySQL has.

MySQL does however have the benefit that you can run with and without
transactions and gives the application the possibility to decide
between speed or safety.

We have also benchmarked PostgreSQL 7.0 and even if they have improved
a lot of things, the are still VERY slow compared to MySQL in most
cases. You can find a comparison at:

http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmark-results/result-mysql,pg.html

(We did also try to benchmark 7.1, but run into problems while doing
this so we are waiting for a new PostgreSQL release before trying to
do this again)

We know that some recent published comparisons between MySQL and
PostgreSQL has given better results for PostgreSQL for some types of
queries when done by multiple threads, but we haven't seen a single
repeatable one where they have used a late MySQL 3.23 version and a
up to date operating system.

For many of the applications MySQL is used today, PostgreSQL is in
practice way too slow! I also know of situations where PostgreSQL is
faster than MySQL, but this is a little beside the point; The simple
truth is that there is a need for many different databases and neither
MySQL nor PostgreSQL can be best for all of these.

Regards,
Monty

> Hi again!

Hi Monty! Glad to see you on the list!

> I think it's good that PostgreSQL starts to get better;
> This means just that life gets more interesting...

Speaking of life getting interesting...over the past year or so, I've heard
noise about MySQL added the capability for stored procedures. I have also
heard noise that the Zend engine would be used for this. Any nugget of
truth in either of those?

>
> Regards,
> Monty
>

Dave

> I doubt that the postgreSQL team would agree with you. If that would
> be the case, they would be out of work now, wouldn't they :)

Nope, and most of what is coming is very interesting.

> Open areas are, among many others, a Windows port, repliction, hot

What's open areas? Windows port? Why? Replication, maybe this would be of
interest: http://www.pgsql.com/pdf/PR_RServ.pdf

> backup, better ODBC support, more speed, better syncing to disk, no

There's hot backup. Why shouldn't there. Readers can never be blocked by
writers.

And so on.

--
Kaare Rasmussen --Linux, spil,-- Tlf: 3816 2582
Kaki Data tshirts, merchandize Fax: 3816 2501
Howitzvej 75 Åben 14.00-18.00 Email: kar@webline.dk
2000 Frederiksberg Lørdag 11.00-17.00 Web: www.suse.dk

Hi again!


>> MySQL 3.23.15 introduced experimental support for Berkeley DB to handle
>> transactions (5/9/2000).


I have benchmarked this a bit :)

When inserting 350768 rows,
Seconds

MySQL with MyISAM tables: 130.00
MySQL witb BDB tables, with sync to disk enabled: 3017.00
MySQL with BDB tables, no sync: 186.00

PostgreSQL 7.0.1 without syncing with periodic vacum(): 375.00 (*)
PostgreSQL 7.0.1 without syncinc without periodic vacum(): 8542.00

(*) Not including vacum time (I don't have a exact figure for this
test, only a total for all tests I run)

I know that the above is not complete; We need to do some tests also
with syncing enabled on postgreSQL. We are just waiting for the next
PostgreSQL release before doing a new round and then we will release
all figures. For now, you can test these yourself by just downloading
the MySQL source distribution and running the benchmark against
PostgreSQL. Our benchmark page has very clear instructions of how to
do this!

In most of the tests we have run, MySQL with BDB tables was faster
than PostgreSQL, especially when we turned of syncing to disk.
The cases when PostgreSQL was faster than BDB tables was some
searching on a secondary index, updating the primary key and deleting
in tables with many keys. (This comes from the fact that BDB tables
uses the primary key to refer from a secondary index to the row).

>> So, I think MySQL is alive and kicking....Yes, I like MySQL. But with all
>> that said and done, I have heard good stuff about PostgresQL 7.0, and I
> plan on checking it out.

Jeff> We used to be an all-mysql shop but switched to postgres about 8 months
Jeff> back as version 7 just offers too much over mysql. I was aware of the
Jeff> availability of the berkeleydb flavor of mysql but until the code is more
Jeff> refined I don't consider that anything other than a novelty. Implementing
Jeff> transactional support this far into the software's life and then having to
Jeff> refine the code to get the performance back up will be a significant feat.

We have already done that :)
MySQL 3.23.31 compiles cleanly with BDB and we have purified and
purecoveraged all Berkeley interface code! One can now run our full
benchmark suite on BDB tables without any problems!

Note that MySQL was from the start coded to be able to have different
storage engines, so there was no need to go through a lot of code to
increase performance; All changes were done in a very limited
interface area.

MySQL has also two other transactional database handlers coming into
4.0 with different performance characteristics, so a lot of new
interesting stuff is happening!

Jeff> I suspect that postgres will remain ahead for quite some time, the primary
Jeff> area for improvement would be blob support and a more advanced
Jeff> security/permissions system. Mysql now has the start of replication, I
Jeff> would expect to see that coming in postgres also. It just looks like the
Jeff> mysql team has their work cut out for them whereas the postgres team doesn't
Jeff> really have anything too intricate that needs to be done.

I doubt that the postgreSQL team would agree with you. If that would
be the case, they would be out of work now, wouldn't they :)

Open areas are, among many others, a Windows port, repliction, hot
backup, better ODBC support, more speed, better syncing to disk, no
vacuum().. The MySQL crash-me pages also shows that PostgreSQL is
still lacking a lot of features (even if it has some heavy features
that MySQL doesn't yet have).

(This doesn't mean that the MySQL TODO list isn't long; I just wanted to
point out that PostgreSQL lists isn't any shorter...)

I think it's good that PostgreSQL starts to get better;
This means just that life gets more interesting...

Jeff> Now lets see one
Jeff> of those development teams take on multi-phase commit and then we will be
Jeff> talking!
Jeff> Mysql does seem to still be more widely used by far, it does have a
Jeff> serious foothold, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Regards,
Monty

Quoting Kaare Rasmussen (kar@webline.dk):
> > I doubt that the postgreSQL team would agree with you. If that would
> > be the case, they would be out of work now, wouldn't they :)
>
> Nope, and most of what is coming is very interesting.
>
> > Open areas are, among many others, a Windows port, repliction, hot
>
> What's open areas? Windows port? Why? Replication, maybe this would be of
> interest: http://www.pgsql.com/pdf/PR_RServ.pdf
>
> > backup, better ODBC support, more speed, better syncing to disk, no
>
> There's hot backup. Why shouldn't there. Readers can never be blocked by
> writers.
>
> And so on.
>

We now return you to your regular advocacy threads already in progress.

--
Akopia, Inc., 131 Willow Lane, Floor 2, Oxford, OH 45056
phone +1.513.523.7621 fax 7501 <heins@akopia.com>

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Dick Feynman

> We now return you to your regular advocacy threads already in progress.

Talk about biaz.

Maybe you like MySQL better, Mike. Of course you're entitled to do that.

But I try at least to give some information where Widenius is not updated and
therefore giving wrong information.

--
Kaare Rasmussen --Linux, spil,-- Tlf: 3816 2582
Kaki Data tshirts, merchandize Fax: 3816 2501
Howitzvej 75 Åben 14.00-18.00 Email: kar@webline.dk
2000 Frederiksberg Lørdag 11.00-17.00 Web: www.suse.dk

Quoting Kaare Rasmussen (kar@webline.dk):
> > We now return you to your regular advocacy threads already in progress.
>
> Talk about biaz.
>
> Maybe you like MySQL better, Mike. Of course you're entitled to do that.
>
> But I try at least to give some information where Widenius is not updated and
> therefore giving wrong information.

I didn't reply to your rebuttal of my statement, because it didn't relate
to Interchange.

If you think I am greatly biased, that is certainly your right.
I guess at least that part might relate to Interchange. 8-)

I don't think I am -- I have spent a great deal of effort designing an
application which is not biased toward any specific database. In other
words, I am telling you I am not greatly biased and that I have spent
thousands of hours trying to prove that. You can take it for what you
think it is worth, as can everyone.

You got your chance to post, as did Monty and some others. I am simply
saying that when the topic excludes Interchange, it no longer belongs
on this list. There are plenty of forums for Postgres vs. Mysql.

--
Akopia, Inc., 131 Willow Lane, Floor 2, Oxford, OH 45056
phone +1.513.523.7621 fax 7501 <heins@akopia.com>

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon

And now we will have all this in the mail archives to clutter the searches
for mySQL answers ;)

-----Original Message-----
From: interchange-users-admin@lists.akopia.com
[mailto:interchange-users-admin@lists.akopia.com]On Behalf Of Mike Heins
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 3:41 PM
To: interchange-users@lists.akopia.com
Subject: Re: [ic] postgres vs mysql (fwd)


Quoting Kaare Rasmussen (kar@webline.dk):
> > We now return you to your regular advocacy threads already in progress.
>
> Talk about biaz.
>
> Maybe you like MySQL better, Mike. Of course you're entitled to do that.
>
> But I try at least to give some information where Widenius is not updated
and
> therefore giving wrong information.

I didn't reply to your rebuttal of my statement, because it didn't relate
to Interchange.

If you think I am greatly biased, that is certainly your right.
I guess at least that part might relate to Interchange. 8-)

I don't think I am -- I have spent a great deal of effort designing an
application which is not biased toward any specific database. In other
words, I am telling you I am not greatly biased and that I have spent
thousands of hours trying to prove that. You can take it for what you
think it is worth, as can everyone.

You got your chance to post, as did Monty and some others. I am simply
saying that when the topic excludes Interchange, it no longer belongs
on this list. There are plenty of forums for Postgres vs. Mysql.

--
Akopia, Inc., 131 Willow Lane, Floor 2, Oxford, OH 45056
phone +1.513.523.7621 fax 7501 <heins@akopia.com>

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon

_______________________________________________
Interchange-users mailing list
Interchange-users@lists.akopia.com
http://lists.akopia.com/mailman/listinfo/interchange-users

> You got your chance to post, as did Monty and some others. I am simply
> saying that when the topic excludes Interchange, it no longer belongs
> on this list. There are plenty of forums for Postgres vs. Mysql.

It would have been better to write this the first time. Your message was
directed in one direction only.

To keep in mind the next time.

--
Kaare Rasmussen --Linux, spil,-- Tlf: 3816 2582
Kaki Data tshirts, merchandize Fax: 3816 2501
Howitzvej 75 Åben 14.00-18.00 Email: kar@webline.dk
2000 Frederiksberg Lørdag 11.00-17.00 Web: www.suse.dk

Quoting Kaare Rasmussen (kar@webline.dk):
> > You got your chance to post, as did Monty and some others. I am simply
> > saying that when the topic excludes Interchange, it no longer belongs
> > on this list. There are plenty of forums for Postgres vs. Mysql.
>
> It would have been better to write this the first time. Your message was
> directed in one direction only.

No, I included quotes from both Monty and you. Since you didn't attribute
the quote to him in your message, his name was not there, but it was
certainly his comments included. I was replying to both of you.

I did use an American idiom which might not be recognized by everyone --
to say "we now return you to your regularly scheduled program, already
in progress" would be perhaps be taken in a different way by someone not born
in the US. For that I apologize -- I do it too often.

--
Akopia, Inc., 131 Willow Lane, Floor 2, Oxford, OH 45056
phone +1.513.523.7621 fax 7501 <heins@akopia.com>

Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer

> Dave> Speaking of life getting interesting...over the past year or so,
I've heard
> Dave> noise about MySQL added the capability for stored procedures. I
have also
> Dave> heard noise that the Zend engine would be used for this. Any nugget
of
> Dave> truth in either of those?
>
> We are just about to hire a guy that is going to work full time on
> this. The idea is to first specify and then implement an interface to
> load 'any' language into the MySQL server. We plan to start with Zend
> and Python, but the idea is that the interface will be general enough
> to work with almost any language.

That is totaly awesome Monty! I can't wait for that to come out. Being
able to store procedures in a language you're comfortable with can make
Interchange even more flexible!

>
> Regards,
> Monty


Dave

---- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Widenius" <monty@mysql.com>
To: "Jeff Dafoe" <jeff@badtz-maru.com>
Cc: <interchange-users@lists.akopia.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ic] postgres vs mysql (fwd)



> For many of the applications MySQL is used today, PostgreSQL is in
> practice way too slow! I also know of situations where PostgreSQL is
> faster than MySQL, but this is a little beside the point; The simple
> truth is that there is a need for many different databases and neither
> MySQL nor PostgreSQL can be best for all of these.

I would like to thank you for taking the time to join the list and
provide useful information for all of us. Both mysql and postgresql are
incredible pieces of software, there is not a bad thing I could ever say
about mysql. It is great to see that its development is strong and that
there is a clear path to the future.


Jeff

>> Hi again!

Dave> Hi Monty! Glad to see you on the list!

>> I think it's good that PostgreSQL starts to get better;
>> This means just that life gets more interesting...

Dave> Speaking of life getting interesting...over the past year or so, I've heard
Dave> noise about MySQL added the capability for stored procedures. I have also
Dave> heard noise that the Zend engine would be used for this. Any nugget of
Dave> truth in either of those?

We are just about to hire a guy that is going to work full time on
this. The idea is to first specify and then implement an interface to
load 'any' language into the MySQL server. We plan to start with Zend
and Python, but the idea is that the interface will be general enough
to work with almost any language.

Regards,
Monty

Thanks for writing the list, Monty. I enjoyed reading your posts. Except
for the fact that now I'm confused about which database I should use
again. :-) I started out on Mysql, then converted to pgsql, now I'm back
to mysql. Go figure. Also, it is great to read one project lead-developer
talk about competetive projects. You do a fine job Monty, read one of
Linus' recent posts for contrast:

<LINUS>
And I have to say that I absolutely despise the BSD people. They did
sendfile() after both Linux and HP-UX had done it, and they must have
known about both implementations. And they chose the HP-UX braindamage,
and even brag about the fact that they were stupid and didn't understand
TCP_CORK (they don't say so in those exact words, of course - they just
show that they were stupid and clueless by the things they brag about).

Oh, well. Not everybody can be as goodlooking as me. It's a curse.

Linus
</LINUS>
That was a few days ago. Isn't Linus great? I digress.

At 11:12 PM 1/18/2001 +0200, Monty wrote:
>Open areas are, among many others, a Windows port, repliction, hot

Windows Port of pgsql seems to be coming along nicely,
actually. http://208.160.255.143 has a nice "Setup.exe" for 7.0.2 that can
be installed even by the lowliest PHB's. (And seems to run pretty well too).

And I am very excited to see how PostgreSQL's replication (recently checked
into CVS) will stack up against MySQL's battle-hardened replication. I'm
not suprised at how far MySQL's replication has come after the much reputed
donation of $100,000 by Slashdot.org to MySQL development! A few months
later we now have Great Bridge following suit with it's eRServer project.

>better ODBC support [...]

I've been wondering about this. When GreatBridge released their
"benchmarks" for PostgreSQL vs mysql (3.22) that were done with by ODBC
interface, many mentioned the fact that Mysql hasn't performance optimized
their ODBC driver at the time. I figured it was more because of the
version they used (3.22). What do you think?

[Thread onTopic]
How well does Interchange work with ODBC as a backend? DBD::ODBC is 0.28
and released 23rd March 2000 -- so it's probably not being actively
maintained. (Ha ha! Now my post is on topic!). ;-P
[/Thread]


Dan Browning, Cyclone Computer Systems, danb@cyclonecomputers.com

sorry mike, did'nt realize I was opening such a big can of worms. Only
reason I posted it here, was because it would be relevant to how I handled
interchange
Troy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Heins" <mikeh@minivend.com>
To: <interchange-users@lists.akopia.com>
Sent: Thursday, 18 January, 2001 13:41
Subject: Re: [ic] postgres vs mysql (fwd)


> Quoting Kaare Rasmussen (kar@webline.dk):
> > > We now return you to your regular advocacy threads already in
progress.
> >
> > Talk about biaz.
> >
> > Maybe you like MySQL better, Mike. Of course you're entitled to do that.
> >
> > But I try at least to give some information where Widenius is not
updated and
> > therefore giving wrong information.
>
> I didn't reply to your rebuttal of my statement, because it didn't relate
> to Interchange.
>
> If you think I am greatly biased, that is certainly your right.
> I guess at least that part might relate to Interchange. 8-)
>
> I don't think I am -- I have spent a great deal of effort designing an
> application which is not biased toward any specific database. In other
> words, I am telling you I am not greatly biased and that I have spent
> thousands of hours trying to prove that. You can take it for what you
> think it is worth, as can everyone.
>
> You got your chance to post, as did Monty and some others. I am simply
> saying that when the topic excludes Interchange, it no longer belongs
> on this list. There are plenty of forums for Postgres vs. Mysql.
>
> --
> Akopia, Inc., 131 Willow Lane, Floor 2, Oxford, OH 45056
> phone +1.513.523.7621 fax 7501 <heins@akopia.com>
>
> Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interchange-users mailing list
> Interchange-users@lists.akopia.com
> http://lists.akopia.com/mailman/listinfo/interchange-users
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.226 / Virus Database: 108 - Release Date: 1/5/2001

Dan> Thanks for writing the list, Monty. I enjoyed reading your posts. Except
Dan> for the fact that now I'm confused about which database I should use
Dan> again. :-) I started out on Mysql, then converted to pgsql, now I'm back
Dan> to mysql. Go figure. Also, it is great to read one project lead-developer
Dan> talk about competetive projects. You do a fine job Monty, read one of
Dan> Linus' recent posts for contrast:

Dan> <LINUS>
Dan> And I have to say that I absolutely despise the BSD people. They did
Dan> sendfile() after both Linux and HP-UX had done it, and they must have
Dan> known about both implementations. And they chose the HP-UX braindamage,
Dan> and even brag about the fact that they were stupid and didn't understand
Dan> TCP_CORK (they don't say so in those exact words, of course - they just
Dan> show that they were stupid and clueless by the things they brag about).

Dan> Oh, well. Not everybody can be as goodlooking as me. It's a curse.

Dan> Linus
Dan> </LINUS>
Dan> That was a few days ago. Isn't Linus great? I digress.

I assume we can't all be as modest as Linus :)

Dan> At 11:12 PM 1/18/2001 +0200, Monty wrote:

>> Open areas are, among many others, a Windows port, repliction, hot

Dan> Windows Port of pgsql seems to be coming along nicely,
Dan> actually. http://208.160.255.143 has a nice "Setup.exe" for 7.0.2 that can
Dan> be installed even by the lowliest PHB's. (And seems to run pretty well too).

Thanks for the information; I didn't know that they had this working
already; Time to do some benchmarking on windows...

Dan> And I am very excited to see how PostgreSQL's replication (recently checked
Dan> into CVS) will stack up against MySQL's battle-hardened replication. I'm
Dan> not suprised at how far MySQL's replication has come after the much reputed
Dan> donation of $100,000 by Slashdot.org to MySQL development! A few months
Dan> later we now have Great Bridge following suit with it's eRServer project.

>> better ODBC support [...]

Dan> I've been wondering about this. When GreatBridge released their
Dan> "benchmarks" for PostgreSQL vs mysql (3.22) that were done with by ODBC
Dan> interface, many mentioned the fact that Mysql hasn't performance optimized
Dan> their ODBC driver at the time. I figured it was more because of the
Dan> version they used (3.22). What do you think?

One of the problems with the benchmark was that GreatBride in the
beginning used our ODBC driver compiled for debugging; They did later
run the benchmarks again with our normal (optimized) ODBC driver but
they still refused to use our recommended MySQL version, but used
instead an old version of MySQL on a system that wasn't patched for
multi-threaded applications; One problem with Linux is that if one
wants to have good performance with a multi-threaded program one must
patch gcc; Our MySQL 3.23 binary includes some of the needed patches,
but GreatBridge wasn't interested to do any testing with this version.

There was so many bad things done with this particular benchmark (I
have already posted a lot of things about this in different forums, so
there is no idea to discuss this further); The only good thing that
come out of it was that Compaq made an open source version of a
similar benchmark, so now we will be able to do an open source
benchmark of both products to get some real figures! This will give
both groups some better indication of what we need to improve upon,
so this is a good thing!

Dan> [Thread onTopic]
Dan> How well does Interchange work with ODBC as a backend? DBD::ODBC is 0.28
Dan> and released 23rd March 2000 -- so it's probably not being actively
Dan> maintained. (Ha ha! Now my post is on topic!). ;-P

sorry, but I can't for the moment recollect anything special about
InterChange and ODBC.

Dan> [/Thread]

Regards,
Monty