<snip good stuff...> 31Million tuples were loaded in approx 279 seconds, or approx 112k rows per second.
> 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..... I'd say we're there. || <CLAPPING!!> Yes! PG is there, assuredly! So VERY cool! I made a newbie error of conflating COPY with INSERT. I don't know if I could get oracle to do much more than about 500-1500 rows/sec...PG is quite impressive. Makes one wonder why corporations positively insist on giving oracle $$$$ yearly. <shrug> -----Original Message----- From: Rod Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:41 PM To: Mohan, Ross Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: RE : RE: [PERFORM] Postgresql vs SQLserver for thisapplication ? On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 16:12 +0000, Mohan, Ross wrote: > 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. ) Just for kicks I did a local test on a desktop machine (single CPU, single IDE drive) using COPY from STDIN for a set of integers in via a single transaction, no indexes. 1572864 tuples were loaded in 13715.613ms, which is approx 115k rows per second. Okay, no checkpoints and I didn't cross an index boundary, but I also haven't tuned the config file beyond bumping up the buffers. Lets try again with more data this time. 31Million tuples were loaded in approx 279 seconds, or approx 112k rows per second. > 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..... I'd say we're there. > -----Original Message----- > 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 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: 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 > > 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]) > -- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings