2 ms·

Why do you say that?

• buster 14y ago
  don't know where to start.. 1. it's confusing (atleast for me) 2. a lot of his charts don't start with 0, this leaves the impression that e.g. mongodb is 3 times faster then PG, when in reality the difference was like 5% 3. one scollable page with multiple pictures would have been much better, imo 4. About the page itself: i don't see how many times the benchmarks were run. The conclusion shows that even the writer is mislead in interpreting the charts... "PostgreSQL performs worse than MongoDB in the retrieval queries but the time it takes is negligible (we are way under 1 second)" What does it matter that it's one second?! That's stupid. His charts show for example for get_email 0.001 seconds versus 0.005 seconds. That's 5 times faster! Saying "that's so small, i don't care" sounds bad. Unless the author meant some other charts... Also, when i'm at it, i am not sure if this is a good benchmark at all. 0.001 seconds is an extremely small value to measure. I doubt it is usefull for comparison. But it may be ok, if this is would be some "real-world" example where queries don't take long. But the benchmark is not "real-world". At all. I would have liked to see a more realistic one (the dataset is ok), with multiple concurrent queries and also with measurement of CPU and memory consumption..
  • sesqu 14y ago
    I wouldn't say it's confusing, but the inconsistent baselines are very misleading. I'm also pretty surprised that some of the tests are anywhere near comparable, since they had different indexes.