> > Re this talk given by Michael Stonebraker:
> >
> > http://slideshot.epfl.ch/play/suri_stonebraker
> >
> >
> >
> > He makes the claim that in a modern ‘big iron’ RDBMS such as Oracle,
> > DB2, MS SQL Server, Postgres, given enough memory that the entire
> > database lives in cache, the server will spend 96% of its memory
> > cycles on unproductive overhead. This includes buffer management,
> > locking, latching (thread/CPU
> > conflicts) and recovery (including log file reads and writes).
> >
> >
> >
> > [Enough memory in this case assumes that for just about any
> business,
> > 1TB is enough. The intent of his argument is that a server designed
> > correctly for it would run 25x faster.]
> >
> >
> >
> > I wondered if there are any figures or measurements on Postgres
> > performance in this ‘enough memory’ environment to support or
> contest
> > this point of view?
>
> What limits postgresql when everything fits in memory? The fact that
> it's designed to survive a power outage and not lose all your data.
>
> Stonebraker's new stuff is cool, but it is NOT designed to survive
> total power failure.
I don't think this is quite true. The mechanism he proposes has a small window in which committed transactions can be
lost,and this should be addressed by replication or by a small amount of UPC (a few seconds).
But that isn't my question: I'm asking whether anyone *knows* any comparable figures for Postgres. IOW how much
performancegain might be available for different design choices.
> Two totally different design concepts. It's apples and oranges to
> compare them.
Not to an end user. A system that runs 10x on OLTP and provides all the same functionality is a direct competitor.
Regards
David M Bennett FACS
Andl - A New Database Language - andl.org
