Total Requests
67,684 vs 50,385
CNPG handled 34.3% more requests than Native PostgreSQL
Failures
0 vs 10
CNPG had 100% reliability with zero failures
Avg Response Time
795ms vs 1,097ms
CNPG was 27.6% faster on average
Requests Per Second
112.8 vs 83.97
CNPG achieved 34.3% higher throughput
Performance Summary (Normalized Scores)
Response Time Comparison (ms)
Requests Per Second
Response Time Percentiles (ms)
Failure Rate Comparison
Detailed Performance Analysis
Operation Performance
| Operation | CNPG | Native | Winner | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| res.partner/write | 18,487 requests (30.81 RPS) | 502 Errors | CNPG | 100% more successful |
| res.partner/search | 10,539 requests (17.56 RPS) | 502 Errors | CNPG | 100% more successful |
| Connection Stability | Zero failures | Multiple 502 errors | CNPG | 100% more stable |
Key Insights
Performance
CNPG showed 27-34% better performance across critical metrics including throughput, response times, and reliability.
Reliability
Zero failures in CNPG vs 10 failures in Native PostgreSQL, with 502 errors showing infrastructure strain in the native setup.
Scalability
CNPG handled 34% more requests without issues while Native PostgreSQL hit capacity limits with failures.
Architecture
Cloud-native design of CNPG proved superior to traditional PostgreSQL setup, especially in Kubernetes environments.
Final Recommendation
CNPG PostgreSQL demonstrates clear superiority across all critical performance metrics and is the recommended solution for production workloads requiring high performance and reliability.
Performance Advantage
27-34% better performance across all metrics
Reliability Advantage
100% success rate vs failures in native setup
Operational Advantage
Automated management reduces maintenance burden