<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Nov 26, 2007 1:36 PM, Bill Moran <<a href="mailto:wmoran@potentialtech.com">wmoran@potentialtech.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I have one additional question. You say the following:<br>"MySQL's query cache makes its performance better. This can be demonstrated by restarting MySQL, then visiting the home page of the site and seeing the query time in devel's output. However this is not as marked as what PostgreSQL takes."
<br><br>Could you explain/clarify that statement?<font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote></div><br clear="all">What I meant is that even when the query cache does not kick in, MySQL is still faster than PostgreSQL.<br>
<br>An easy way to do that without fiddling with MySQL variables and such is to restart mysql, then hit the front page, see what devel says, then hit it again and see the difference. That difference is due to the query cache.
<br><br><p>With query cache not yet caching any queries<br>
</p>
<pre> Page execution time was <em>92.74</em> ms. Executed <em>98</em> queries in <em>30.04</em> milliseconds.<br></pre><p>With page's queries cached in the query cache<br>
</p>
<pre> Page execution time was <em>63.61</em> ms. Executed <em>98</em> queries in <em>10.38</em> milliseconds. <br></pre>Still, 93 ms is faster than PostgreSQL's 130 ms.<br>-- <br>Khalid M. Baheyeldin<br><a href="http://2bits.com">
2bits.com</a><br><a href="http://2bits.com">http://2bits.com</a><br>Drupal optimization, development, customization and consulting.