I wish I had a Dell system and run case to show you Alex, but I don't... however...using Oracle's "direct path" feature, it's pretty straightforward.
We've done 110,000 rows per second into index-less tables on a big system (IBM Power5 chips, Hitachi SAN). ( Yes, I am sure: over 100K a second. Sustained for almost 9 minutes. ) Yes, this is an exception, but oracle directpath/InsertAppend/BulkLoad feature enabled us to migrate a 4 TB database...really quickly. Now...if you ask me "can this work without Power5 and Hitachi SAN?" my answer is..you give me a top end Dell and SCSI III on 15K disks and I'll likely easily match it, yea. I'd love to see PG get into this range..i am a big fan of PG (just a rank newbie) but I gotta think the underlying code to do this has to be not-too-complex..... Best, Ross -----Original Message----- From: Alex Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mohan, Ross Subject: Re: RE : RE: [PERFORM] Postgresql vs SQLserver for this application ? 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 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
