Whoa! Slow down, Robert. They're just silly queries intended to show some full-table perf - which is what you might want if you wrote the backend and don't trust the parser. All the same, it's a pretty poor comparison. IIRC, Postgres has historically not been as fast on Windows; we don't know the filesystem; 32MegRAM is pretty poor. If InnoDB was designed for windows filesystems, it would show a non-trivial advantage there and a loss on Unices. Also, NT's 'Task Manager' is hardly a good piece of system reporting software -- I place no faith in those numbers. I know nothing about his tuning parameters.
The numbers mean nothing - I was just posting Tuuri's post to develop some of Don's statements about InnoDB and refuting some others. (Namely that the InnoDB folks are closer to the MySQL folks than Don thought.)
Funny thing about performance claims - the rule of thumb I've developed is that groups won't change tools until there's a clear 1.7 to 2 orders-of-magnitude improvement. Anything less is just too much bother for porting. MySQL's harping is fairly irrelevant b/c of that (even ignoring the fact that it's a kid DB).
