Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I have no idea how much memory SQL Server thinks it can use
Hmmm... That triggered an old memory -- when we were running SQL
Server on Windows there was some registry setting which we tweaked
to prevent the OS from trying to cache disk I/O. (Sorry I don't
remember the name of it.) That helped SQL Server perform better,
but would cripple PostgreSQL -- it counts on OS caching.
Of course, once we found that PostgreSQL was 70% faster on identical
hardware with identical load, and switching the OS to Linux brought
it to twice as fast, I haven't had to worry about SQL Server or
Windows configurations. ;-) Don't panic if PostgreSQL seems slower
at first, it's probably a configuration or maintenance schedule
issue that can be sorted out.
Besides the specific advice Tom gave you, you might want to browse
this page for configuration in general:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Tuning_Your_PostgreSQL_Server
And if you continue to experience performance issues, this page can
help you get to a resolution quickly:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SlowQueryQuestions
We've been very happy with the switch to PostgreSQL. We've had
better performance, better reliability, less staff time needed to
babysit backups, and we've been gradually using more of the advance
features not available in other products. It's well worth the
effort to get over those initial bumps resulting from product
differences.
-Kevin
