Re: [PERFORM] performance comparission postgresql/ms-sql server
Heiko Kehlenbrink wrote: i want to convince people to use postgresql instead of ms-sql server, so i set up a kind of comparission insert data / select data from postgresql / ms-sql server [...] do you have any hints like compiler-flags and so on to get the answering time from postgresql equal to ms-sql? (btw both dbms were running on exactly the same hardware) i use suse 8.1 postgresql 7.2 compiled from the rpms for using postgis, but that is anothe story... 1.5 gig ram 1.8 mhz intel cpu every help welcome Suse 8.1 comes with 2.4 series kernel I suppose. Many have witnessed a speed increase when using 2.6 series kernel. Might consider this too besides the newer PostgreSQL version already suggested. 2.6 has some scheduling options that are not enabled by default but may enhance database performance (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=75&e=2&u=/nf/20040405/tc_nf/23603). Kaarel ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [PERFORM] Linux filesystem shootout
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0310.1/0208.html Shridhar I feel incompetent when it comes to file systems. Yet everybody would like to have the best file system if given the choice...so do I :) Here I am looking at those tables seeing JFS having more green cells than others. The more green the better right? So based on these tests JFS ought to be the one? Kaarel
Re: [PERFORM] Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...
Are you willing to say that the PostgreSQL database system should only be used by DBAs? I believe that Postgres is such a good and useful tool that anyone should be able to start using it with little or no barrier to entry. I quite agree. But there is a difference between saying "you should get decent performance with no effort" and "you should get optimal performance with no effort". I think we can get to the first with relatively little trouble (like boosting the default shared_buffers to 1000), but the second is an impractical goal. Just wanted to repeat some of the thoughts already been expressed. There are no reasons why shouldn't PostgreSQL be reasonably well configured for a particular platform out of the box. Not for maximum performance but for good enough performance. The many complaints by new users about PostgreSQL being suprisingly slow and the all the so standard answers (vacuum, pump up memory settings) imho prove that the default installatio can be improved. Already mentioned in the mail lists: using multiple standard conf files, quering system info and dynamically generating all or some parts of the conf file, automating the vacuum process... Kaarel ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
