IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jftint/v16y2024i10p382-d1502432.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Performance Benchmark for the PostgreSQL and MySQL Databases

Author

Listed:
  • Sanket Vilas Salunke

    (Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Western University, London, ON N6A 5B9, Canada)

  • Abdelkader Ouda

    (Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Western University, London, ON N6A 5B9, Canada)

Abstract

This study highlights the necessity for efficient database management in continuous authentication systems, which rely on large-scale behavioral biometric data such as keystroke patterns. A benchmarking framework was developed to evaluate the PostgreSQL and MySQL databases, minimizing repetitive coding through configurable functions and variables. The methodology involved experiments assessing select and insert queries under primary and complex conditions, simulating real-world scenarios. Our quantified results show PostgreSQL’s superior performance in select operations. In primary tests, PostgreSQL’s execution time for 1 million records ranged from 0.6 ms to 0.8 ms, while MySQL’s ranged from 9 ms to 12 ms, indicating that PostgreSQL is about 13 times faster. For select queries with a where clause, PostgreSQL required 0.09 ms to 0.13 ms compared to MySQL’s 0.9 ms to 1 ms, making it roughly 9 times more efficient. Insert operations were similar, with PostgreSQL at 0.0007 ms to 0.0014 ms and MySQL at 0.0010 ms to 0.0030 ms. In complex experiments with simultaneous operations, PostgreSQL maintained stable performance (0.7 ms to 0.9 ms for select queries during inserts), while MySQL’s performance degraded significantly (7 ms to 13 ms). These findings underscore PostgreSQL’s suitability for environments requiring low data latency and robust concurrent processing capabilities, making it ideal for continuous authentication systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanket Vilas Salunke & Abdelkader Ouda, 2024. "A Performance Benchmark for the PostgreSQL and MySQL Databases," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-22, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:382-:d:1502432
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/16/10/382/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/16/10/382/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:382-:d:1502432. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.