A Performance Benchmark for the PostgreSQL and MySQL Databases
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it