Well, quite honestly, if you need this performance (5000 ins / sec) and
features (clustering, replication) - you should be looking at DB2 or Oracle.
That is not to say that PG can not do the job, or that its not a great
database, but the reason that DB2 and Oracle are still in wide use is
because they answer the exact question you asked.
-Barry
bsimon@loxane.com wrote:
>
> hi all.
>
> We are designing a quite big application that requires a
> high-performance database backend.
> The rates we need to obtain are at least 5000 inserts per second and 15
> selects per second for one connection. There should only be 3 or 4
> simultaneous connections.
> I think our main concern is to deal with the constant flow of data
> coming from the inserts that must be available for selection as fast as
> possible. (kind of real time access ...)
>
> As a consequence, the database should rapidly increase up to more than
> one hundred gigs. We still have to determine how and when we shoud
> backup old data to prevent the application from a performance drop. We
> intend to develop some kind of real-time partionning on our main table
> keep the flows up.
>
> At first, we were planning to use SQL Server as it has features that in
> my opinion could help us a lot :
> - replication
> - clustering
>
> Recently we started to study Postgresql as a solution for our project :
> - it also has replication
> - Postgis module can handle geographic datatypes (which would
> facilitate our developments)
> - We do have a strong knowledge on Postgresql administration (we
> use it for production processes)
> - it is free (!) and we could save money for hardware purchase.
>
> Is SQL server clustering a real asset ? How reliable are Postgresql
> replication tools ? Should I trust Postgresql performance for this kind
> of needs ?
>
> My question is a bit fuzzy but any advices are most welcome...
> hardware,tuning or design tips as well :))
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Benjamin.
>
