Re: RE : RE: Postgresql vs SQLserver for this application ? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Mohan, Ross
Subject Re: RE : RE: Postgresql vs SQLserver for this application ?
Date
Msg-id CC74E7E10A8A054798B6611BD1FEF4D30625DA34@vamail01.thexchange.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE : RE: Postgresql vs SQLserver for this application ?  (bsimon@loxane.com)
Responses Re: RE : RE: Postgresql vs SQLserver for this application  (Steve Wampler <swampler@noao.edu>)
Re: RE : RE: Postgresql vs SQLserver for this  (Rod Taylor <pg@rbt.ca>)
List pgsql-performance
I wish I had a Dell system and run case to show you Alex, but I don't...
however...using Oracle's "direct path" feature, it's pretty straightforward.

We've done 110,000 rows per second into index-less tables on a big system
(IBM Power5 chips, Hitachi SAN). ( Yes, I am sure: over 100K a second. Sustained
for almost 9 minutes. )

Yes, this is an exception, but oracle directpath/InsertAppend/BulkLoad
feature enabled us to migrate a 4 TB database...really quickly.

Now...if you ask me "can this work without Power5 and Hitachi SAN?"
my answer is..you give me a top end Dell and SCSI III on 15K disks
and I'll likely easily match it, yea.

I'd love to see PG get into this range..i am a big fan of PG (just a
rank newbie) but I gotta think the underlying code to do this has
to be not-too-complex.....

Best,

Ross



-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:38 AM
To: bsimon@loxane.com
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mohan, Ross
Subject: Re: RE : RE: [PERFORM] Postgresql vs SQLserver for this application ?


I think everyone was scared off by the 5000 inserts per second number.

I've never seen even Oracle do this on a top end Dell system with copious SCSI attached storage.

Alex Turner
netEconomist

On Apr 6, 2005 3:17 AM, bsimon@loxane.com <bsimon@loxane.com> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately.
>
> But we are in the the process to choose Postgresql with pgcluster. I'm
> currently running some tests (performance, stability...) Save the
> money on the license fees, you get it for your hardware ;-)
>
> I still welcome any advices or comments and I'll let you know how the
> project is going on.
>
> Benjamin.
>
>
>
>  "Mohan, Ross" <RMohan@arbinet.com>
>
> 05/04/2005 20:48
>
>         Pour :        <bsimon@loxane.com>
>         cc :
>         Objet :        RE: [PERFORM] Postgresql vs SQLserver for this
> application ?
>
>
> You never got answers on this? Apologies, I don't have one, but'd be
> curious to hear about any you did get....
>
> thx
>
> Ross
>
> -----Original Message-----
>  From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf
> Of bsimon@loxane.com
>  Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 4:02 AM
>  To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>  Subject: [PERFORM] Postgresql vs SQLserver for this application ?
>
>
>  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.
>
>
>

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Alex Turner
Date:
Subject: Re: RE : RE: Postgresql vs SQLserver for this application ?
Next
From: Steve Wampler
Date:
Subject: Re: RE : RE: Postgresql vs SQLserver for this application