Re: measure of JDBC performances
От | Kovács Péter |
---|---|
Тема | Re: measure of JDBC performances |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8A2DDD7ED7876A4698F6FF204F62CBFC02A661D4@budg112a.sysdata.siemens.hu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | measure of JDBC performances (Auri Mason <[email protected]>) |
Ответы |
Re: measure of JDBC performances
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
> Was the idea to measure the execution time with psql and via > JDBC wrong? It is not a wrong idea at all, but I do not think the difference between the performance of psql and JDBC should be significant. What I am confused about is the order of magnitude by which MS SQL outperformes PostgreSQL. I tested PostgreSQL against Oracle, Interbase and Versant (an OODBMS) on Windows 2000 and I found that PostgreSQL was the second best just a bit behind Interbase and scaled much better than Interbase -- and all this with the Cygwin version of PostgreSQL which I expect to be inherently slower than a real "native" version (say on Linux). Performance very much depends on the kind of tasks you execute (ie. the kind of testcases you apply), but for my purposes Interbase and PostgreSQL were significantly better than either Oracle or Versant. So my guess would be, that the observed huge performance gap between MS SQL and PostgreSQL can be explained either (1) by the specific way your Java server tier uses the JDBC connection or (2) some indexing problem (e.g. you forgot to put an index on a column in one database which is indexed in the other). Or you may have a peculiar test case, for which MS SQL is tuned (perhaps by default) much better than PostgreSQL. Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Auri Mason [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:58 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [JDBC] measure of JDBC performances > > > Hi Peter, > > The Java server tier is running on P4 1900MHz 512MB and > access via JDBC to > a DB that could be: > - PostgreSQL 7.2 - RH 7.2 (running on Celeron 733, 256MB) > - MS SQL 2000 SP2 - Win NT4 SP6 (running on a clone machine > as Postgres, > same proc, same memory, same monitor! ;P ) > > The client is running on another machine, always the same for > both MS SQL > and PostgreSQL tests (another clone of DBs machines). > > Was the idea to measure the execution time with psql and via > JDBC wrong? > > Auri > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Kovács Péter wrote:
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: