Re: Postgres vs. Progress performance - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Robert Treat
Subject Re: Postgres vs. Progress performance
Date
Msg-id 1064859587.2406.491.camel@camel
Whole thread Raw
In response to Postgres vs. Progress performance  ("John Wells" <jb@sourceillustrated.com>)
Responses Re: Postgres vs. Progress performance
List pgsql-general
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 12:43, John Wells wrote:
>  We
> average 2.5 million transactions per day or 800 per second.

800*60*60*24 = 69 million per day... are you doing 2.5 million with
burst of up to 800 per second?

we average around 190 tps, though the high burst i see in the last few
seconds is only 270... about 1/3 of those are inserts and/or updates.

the box its running on is a dual pentium 1.3ghz with 1GB of RAM. it's
not optimal hardware either (only 2 disks for starters), but it runs
pretty solidly and the server its on doesn't seem too taxed..

i feel pretty confident that postgresql can handle your workload without
much trouble, you just need to give it enough hardware.

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "James Moe"
Date:
Subject: Re: numeric rounding
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres vs. Progress performance