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.....
From: Alex Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: email@example.com; 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
On Apr 6, 2005 3:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
> "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....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 4:02 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.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
> 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.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])