I think everyone was scared off by the 5000 inserts per second number. I've never seen even Oracle do this on a top end Dell system with copious SCSI attached storage.
Alex Turner netEconomist On Apr 6, 2005 3:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Unfortunately. > > But we are in the the process to choose Postgresql with pgcluster. I'm > currently running some tests (performance, stability...) > Save the money on the license fees, you get it for your hardware ;-) > > I still welcome any advices or comments and I'll let you know how the > project is going on. > > Benjamin. > > > > "Mohan, Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 05/04/2005 20:48 > > Pour : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc : > Objet : RE: [PERFORM] Postgresql vs SQLserver for this > application ? > > > You never got answers on this? Apologies, I don't have one, but'd be curious > to hear about any you did get.... > > thx > > Ross > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 4:02 AM > To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > Subject: [PERFORM] Postgresql vs SQLserver for this application ? > > > hi all. > > We are designing a quite big application that requires a high-performance > database backend. > The rates we need to obtain are at least 5000 inserts per second and 15 > selects per second for one connection. There should only be 3 or 4 > simultaneous connections. > I think our main concern is to deal with the constant flow of data coming > from the inserts that must be available for selection as fast as possible. > (kind of real time access ...) > > As a consequence, the database should rapidly increase up to more than one > hundred gigs. We still have to determine how and when we shoud backup old > data to prevent the application from a performance drop. We intend to > develop some kind of real-time partionning on our main table keep the flows > up. > > At first, we were planning to use SQL Server as it has features that in my > opinion could help us a lot : > - replication > - clustering > > Recently we started to study Postgresql as a solution for our project : > - it also has replication > - Postgis module can handle geographic datatypes (which would > facilitate our developments) > - We do have a strong knowledge on Postgresql administration (we use > it for production processes) > - it is free (!) and we could save money for hardware purchase. > > Is SQL server clustering a real asset ? How reliable are Postgresql > replication tools ? Should I trust Postgresql performance for this kind of > needs ? > > My question is a bit fuzzy but any advices are most welcome... > hardware,tuning or design tips as well :)) > > Thanks a lot. > > Benjamin. > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
