Guy Rouillier wrote:
> The application is fairly straightforward, but as you say, what is
> working okay with BigDBMS isn't working as well under PG. I'm going to
> try other configuration suggestions made by others before I attempt
> logic changes. The core logic is unchangeable; millions of rows of data
> in a single table will be updated throughout the day. If PG can't
> handle high volume updates well, this may be brick wall.
I understand your reluctance to change your working design in the change
over to PostgreSQL but -
1. Your table definitions may or may not be the issue and a small change
in design (even only choice of datatype) may be all that is needed to
get the needed performance out of PostgreSQL. These changes would be
done before you put PostgreSQL into production use so the amount of
current usage is not relevant when deciding/analyzing these changes but
they may affect your ability to use PostgreSQL as an alternative.
2. I think that the idea of logic changes suggested earlier was more
aimed at your select/update commands than the structure of your tables.
You should expect to have some SQL changes between any database and
using select/update's designed to take advantage of PostgreSQL strengths
can give you performance improvements.
--
Shane Ambler
pgSQL@007Marketing.com
Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz
