Progress on scaling of FreeBSD on 8 CPU systems
paul at pathiakis.com
Mon Feb 26 22:40:45 UTC 2007
> What makes PostgreSQL more interesting? Because you use it perhaps?
> I would hesitate a guess that Mysql is a very common workload
> under FreeBSD likely more so than PostgreSQL and as such that
> would be a very good reason for it to have particular interest
> and hence focus as a good starting point.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just trying to give my take
on "perception" here.
PostgreSQL is developed on FreeBSD and they've always had a close relationship
by means of FreeBSD being the "platform of choice". PostgreSQL is considered
a "real" database.
When you look at commercial databases, there tend to be two large market
shares: Oracle and DB2. Oracle has moved into the realm of clustered access
database with multiple path writing into the DB and it can scale to be quite
PostgreSQL has a large installed base. SUN Microsystems is now supporting it.
It's free. It has advanced features like clustering. It scales to be quite
MySQL has been the "white elephant in the middle of the room" for a while and
then it became the thing for the Linux community to point at to "prove"
MySQL is on the order of the small to medium db. Easy to configure, easy to
tune. Similar to MS SQL, it's widely used and scales to a certain level (so
far, however, this new benchmarking may show it's not MySQL that's the
Please don't jump on this mail, it's just a "perception" letter. There's no
facts in it and I freely admit that. It's a "touchy/feely" thing in the OSS
I've helped a few companies replace heavy read Oracle DBs with PostgreSQL.
They love not paying money to Larry & Co.
More information about the freebsd-performance