Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) wrote in pgsql.performance: Randolf Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ron Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in pgsql.performance: Randolf Richardson wrote: While this doesn't exactly answer your question, I use this little tidbit of information when selling people on PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL was chosen over Oracle as the database to handle all of the .org TLDs information. ... Do you have a link for that information? http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/questions-to-applicants-13.htm#Response13 TheInternetSocietyISOC That's perfect. Thanks! This is rather old news, actually, as Afilias (the outfit actually running the registry for ISOC) has been running the .info TLD on Postgres since 2001. They have the contract for the new .mobi TLD. Perhaps it's old, but it's new to me because I don't follow that area of the internet very closely. And they are currently one of not many bidders to take over the .net registry when Verisign's contract expires this June. Now *that* will be a hard TLD to ignore ;-) Yes, indeed, that will be. My feeling is that Network Solutions actually manages the .NET and .COM registries far better than anyone else does, and when .ORG was switched away I didn't like the lack of flexibility that I have always enjoyed with .NET and .COM -- the problem is that I have to create a separate account and password for each .ORG internet domain name now and can't just use one master account and password for all of them, and if the same folks are going to be running .NET then I'm going to wind up having more management to do for that one as well (and I'm not talking about just a mere handlful of internet domain names either). I am actually sitting in a Toronto hotel room right now because I'm attending a meeting sponsored by Afilias for the purpose of initial design of the Slony-II replication system for Postgres (see Slony-I). According to the Afilias guys I've been having dinners with, they got absolutely zero flak about their use of Postgres in connection with the .mobi bid, after having endured very substantial bombardment (cf above link) --- and a concerted disinformation campaign by Oracle --- in connection with the .org and .info bids. As far as the ICANN community is concerned, this is established technology. Perhaps you could mention this problem I've noticed to them if you happen to be talking with them. It's obviously not a difficult problem to solve when it comes to good database management and would really make life a lot easier for those of us who are responsible for large numbers of internet domain names. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Ron Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in pgsql.performance: I sometimes also think it's fun to point out that Postgresql bigger companies supporting it's software - like this one: http://www.fastware.com.au/docs/FujitsuSupportedPostgreSQLWhitePaper.pdf with $43 billion revenue -- instead of those little companies like Mysql AB or Oracle. :) Heheh. That is a good point indeed. When the illogical everyone else is doing it argument comes along (as typically does whenever someone is pushing for a Microsoft solution), then this will be very helpful. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Wiles) wrote in pgsql.performance: On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 19:01:38 + (UTC) Randolf Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft SQL Server. Recently someone has been trying to convince my client to switch from SyBASE to Microsoft SQL Server (they originally wanted to go with Oracle but have since fallen in love with Microsoft). All this time I've been recommending PostgreSQL for cost and stability (my own testing has shown it to be better at handling abnormal shutdowns and using fewer system resources) in addition to true cross-platform compatibility. If I can show my client some statistics that PostgreSQL outperforms these (I'm more concerned about it beating Oracle because I know that Microsoft's stuff is always slower, but I need the information anyway to protect my client from falling victim to a 'sales job'), then PostgreSQL will be the solution of choice as the client has always believed that they need a high-performance solution. I've already convinced them on the usual price, cross-platform compatibility, open source, long history, etc. points, and I've been assured that if the performance is the same or better than Oracle's and Microsoft's solutions that PostgreSQL is what they'll choose. While this doesn't exactly answer your question, I use this little tidbit of information when selling people on PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL was chosen over Oracle as the database to handle all of the .org TLDs information. While I don't believe the company that won was chosen solely because they used PostgreSQL vs Oracle ( vs anything else ), it does go to show that PostgreSQL can be used in a large scale environment. Do you have a link for that information? I've told a few people about this and one PostgreSQL advocate (thanks to me -- they were going to be a Microsoft shop before that) is asking. Another tidbit you can use in this particular case: I was involved in moving www.ljworld.com, www.lawrence.com, and www.kusports.com from a Sybase backend to a PostgreSQL backend back in 2000-2001. We got roughly a 200% speed improvement at that time and PostgreSQL has only improved since then. I would be more than happy to elaborate on this migration off list if you would like. kusports.com gets a TON of hits especially during March Madness and PostgreSQL has never been an issue in the performance of the site. SyBase is better suited to the small projects in my opinion. I have a number of customers in the legal industry who have to use it because the products they use have a proprietary requirement for it. Fortunately it's quite stable, and uses very little in the way of system resources, but there is a license fee -- I'm not complaining at all, it has always been working well for my clients. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Ron Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in pgsql.performance: Randolf Richardson wrote: While this doesn't exactly answer your question, I use this little tidbit of information when selling people on PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL was chosen over Oracle as the database to handle all of the .org TLDs information. ... Do you have a link for that information? I've told a few people about this and one PostgreSQL advocate (thanks to me -- they were going to be a Microsoft shop before that) is asking. Of course you could read their application when they were competing with a bunch of other companies using databases from different vendors. I believe this is the link to their response to the database questions... http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/questions-to-applicants-13.htm#Response13Th eInternetSocietyISOC That's perfect. Thanks! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in pgsql.performance: Quoting Randolf Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft SQL Server. Recently someone has been trying to convince my I don't know anything about your customer's requirements other than that they have a DB currently and somebody(ies) is(are) trying to get them to switch to another. I don't think you'll find meaningful numbers unless you do your own benchmarks. DB performance is very largely determined by how the application functions, hardware, OS and the DBA's familiarity with the platform. I would suspect that for any given workload on relatively similar hardware that just about any of the DB's you mention would perform similarly if tuned appropriately. client to switch from SyBASE to Microsoft SQL Server (they originally wanted to go with Oracle but have since fallen in love with Microsoft). All this time I've been recommending PostgreSQL for cost and stability (my own testing has shown it to be better at handling abnormal shutdowns and using fewer system resources) in addition to true cross-platform compatibility. Right for the customer? How about Don't fix it if it ain't broke? Replacing a DB backend isn't always trivial (understatement). I suppose if their application is very simple and uses few if any proprietary features of Sybase then changing the DB would be simple. That depends heavily on the application. In general, though, you probably shouldn't rip and replace DB platforms unless there's a very good strategic reason. I don't know about MSSQL, but I know that, if managed properly, Sybase and Oracle can be pretty rock-solid and high performing. If *you* have found FooDB to be the most stable and highest performing, then that probably means that FooDB is the one you're most familiar with rather than FooDB being the best in all circumstances. PostgreSQL is great. I love it. In the right hands and under the right circumstances, it is the best DB. So is Sybase. And Oracle. And MSSQL. That's an objective answer. Unfortunately the issue I'm stuck with is a Microsoft-crazy sales droid who's arguing that MS-SQL is so easy to manage, like all Microsoft products, that a novice can make it outperform other high-end systems like Oracle even when tuned by an expert. This crap makes me want to throw up, but in order to keep the client I'm doing my best to hold it down (I bet many of you are shaking your heads). The client is leaning away from the sales droid, however, and this is partly due to the help I've recieved here in these newsgroups -- thanks everyone. If I can show my client some statistics that PostgreSQL outperforms these (I'm more concerned about it beating Oracle because I know that Microsoft's stuff is always slower, but I need the information anyway to protect my client from falling victim to a 'sales job'), then PostgreSQL will be the solution of choice as the client has always believed that they need a high-performance solution. Unless there's a really compelling reason to switch, optimizing what they already have is probably the best thing for them. They've already paid for it. They've already written their own application and have some familiarity with managing the DB. According to Sybase, Sybase is the fastest thing going. :-) Which is probably pretty close to the truth if the application and DB are tuned appropriately. I agree with you completely. However, the client's looking at getting the application completely re-programmed. The current developer didn't plan it properly, and has been slapping code together as if it's a bowl of spaghetti. In short, there are many problems with the existing system, and I'm talking about proper testing procedures that begin even at the design stage (before any coding begins). I've already convinced them on the usual price, cross-platform compatibility, open source, long history, etc. points, and I've been assured that if the performance is the same or better than Oracle's and Microsoft's solutions that PostgreSQL is what they'll choose. Are you telling me that they're willing to pay $40K per CPU for Oracle if it performs 1% better than PostgreSQL, which is $0? Not to mention throw away Sybase, which is a highly scalable platform in and of itself. The best DB platform is what they currently have, regardless of what they have, unless there is a very compelling reason to switch. [sNip] Have you heard the saying Nobody ever got fired for picking IBM? It is one of those situations where if they don't spend the money in their budget, then they lose it the next time around (no suggestions are needed on this issue, but thanks anyway). ---(end of broadcast
[PERFORM] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft SQL Server. Recently someone has been trying to convince my client to switch from SyBASE to Microsoft SQL Server (they originally wanted to go with Oracle but have since fallen in love with Microsoft). All this time I've been recommending PostgreSQL for cost and stability (my own testing has shown it to be better at handling abnormal shutdowns and using fewer system resources) in addition to true cross-platform compatibility. If I can show my client some statistics that PostgreSQL outperforms these (I'm more concerned about it beating Oracle because I know that Microsoft's stuff is always slower, but I need the information anyway to protect my client from falling victim to a 'sales job'), then PostgreSQL will be the solution of choice as the client has always believed that they need a high-performance solution. I've already convinced them on the usual price, cross-platform compatibility, open source, long history, etc. points, and I've been assured that if the performance is the same or better than Oracle's and Microsoft's solutions that PostgreSQL is what they'll choose. Thanks in advance. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [PERFORM] Some Performance Advice Needed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joshua D. Drake) wrote in pgsql.performance: Jeff wrote: On Dec 23, 2004, at 9:27 AM, Alex wrote: Running hdparm reported A) 920mb/s (SCSI 10k) B) 270mb/s (SCSI 10k) C) 1750mb/s (IDE 7.2k) IDE disks lie about write completion (This can be disabled on some drives) whereas SCSI drives wait for the data to actually be written before they report success. It is quite easy to corrupt a PG (Or most any db really) on an IDE drive. Check the archives for more info. Do we have any real info on this? Specifically which drives? Is SATA the same way? What about SATA-II? I am not saying it isn't true (I know it is) but this is a blanket statement that may or may not be true with newer tech. The name hasn't changed, but don't let that give you the wrong impression because SCSI continues to improve. I only use SCSI drives in all my servers, and that's because they always seem to outperform SATA and IDE when there's a multi-user[1] requirement (of course, the choice of OS [2] is an important factor here too). Disk fragmentation also plays a role, but can actually become a hinderance when in a multi-user environment. I find that the caching algorithm in the OS that I usually choose [2] actually performs extremely well when more users are accessing data on volumes where the data is fragmented. I'm told that this is very similar in the Unix environment as well. Defragmentation makes more sense in a single-user environment because there are generally a very small number of files being loaded at one time, and so a user can benefit hugely from defragmentation. Here's an interesting article (it comes complete with anonymous non- logical emotion-based reader comments too): SCSI vs. IDE: Which is really faster? http://hardware.devchannel.org/hardwarechannel/03/10/20/1953249.shtml? tid=20tid=38tid=49 [1] A somewhat busy web and/or eMail server certainly counts as a multi- user requirement. Put a database on it where the data isn't being accessed sequentially, and that can certainly meet the requirements too. [2] Nearly all my servers run Novell NetWare. -- Randolf Richardson, pro-active spam fighter - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Sending eMail to other SMTP servers is a privilege. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
