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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Postgres vs. Progress performance
Date
Msg-id 27643.1064863195@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Postgres vs. Progress performance  (Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>)
List pgsql-general
Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> i feel pretty confident that postgresql can handle your workload without
> much trouble, you just need to give it enough hardware.

I guess the interesting question is how much iron are they using to
handle the workload now on Progress?  Really there's no doubt that PG
can handle the load, the question is what size box would you have to
run it on, and whether that's cost-effective compared to Progress'
requirements.

I vaguely recall some past statements by Progress-to-PG migrators to
the effect that they found PG's performance just fine by comparison.
Try digging in the mail list archives (although "progress" is likely
to be a horrible search term :-()

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Robert Treat
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres vs. Progress performance
Next
From: Bjørn T Johansen
Date:
Subject: Re: Time problem again?