> On Sun, 2003-07-13 at 01:35, Balazs Wellisch wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> >
> > I’m in the process of initiating a movement in our company to move
> > towards open source software use. As part of this movement I will be
> > recommending PostgreSQL as an alternative to the currently used MSSQL.
> > I’m going with PostgreSQL over MySQL because of the much more complete
> > feature set it provides. (After having used MSSQL for quite some time
> > not having triggers, foreign keys, sub selects, etc. is not an
> > option.)
> Note that I've read a couple of times from Tom Lane (one of the
> core team) that FKs are a serous performance drag, so I'd drop
> them after the s/w has been in production long enough to work
> out the kinks.

That's interesting, I didn't know that. Any idea how much of a performance
drag we're talking about?

> > However, to be able to justify the move I will have to demonstrate
> > that PostgreSQL is up to par with MSSQL and MySQL when it comes to
> > performance. After having read through the docs and the lists it seems
> > obvious that PostgreSQL is not configured for high performance out of
> > the box. I don’t have months to learn the ins and outs of PostgreSQL
> > performance tuning so I looked around to see if there are any
> > preconfigured solutions out there.
> http://www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/
> http://www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html
> http://www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/Tidbits/annotated_conf_e.html

Those links are great!!! Thank you for bringing them to my attantion. And a
BIG thank you to the authors (Josh Berkus & Shridhar Daithankar) for making
this available. I've been looking for an authoritative and comprehensive
source for performance tuning tips but haven't found much except for little
tidbits here and there. This is very nice.

> Me, I'd install Debian, but I understand the comfort level created
> by RH.

Don't know much about Debian, but we've been working with RH for years. I've
had nothing but good experiences with them. (Except maybe for RH8) The new
Enterprise direction they're going in is exectly what we need. Longer
testing cycles and better tuned distributions are good for businesses like
us. We don't necessarily need the latest and greates we need the latest and
most stable to guarantee the highest return on our investment. But, this
discussion is for another list... :)

Thanks for your advice. This list has proved to be a great asset so far.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to