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.....



-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:38 AM
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

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-----
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
>  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])

Reply via email to