Re: Linux ready for high-volume databases? - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Oleg Bartunov |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Linux ready for high-volume databases? |
Date | |
Msg-id | Pine.GSO.4.56.0308262230210.24901@ra.sai.msu.su Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Linux ready for high-volume databases? ("scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>) |
List | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, scott.marlowe wrote: > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Al Hulaton wrote: > > > After seeing this article yesterday, I did a bit of research. One _big_ reason > > why Sourceforge/VA/OSDN is moving over to IBM/Webshere/DB2 from PostgreSQL is > > the resulting product will be jointly marketed by Sourceforge and IBM's > > zillions of sales people. So not only will they get a shiny, new db, but > > backend revenue. > > > > "The companies will jointly market and sell the software as part of the > > commercial agreement. "-- 4th paragraph, last sentence. > > http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3668,a=30025,00.asp > > > > "In a separate announcement today, VA Software announced a significant > > commercial agreement with IBM focused on the joint marketing and sales of the > > next generation of SourceForgeтДв Enterprise Edition." -- 7th paragram from > > their press release at > > http://www.vasoftware.com/news/press.php/2002/1070.html > > > > Perhaps the PostgreSQL team bidding for the job, if any were even consulted, > > didn't frame the project as IBM did -- a product joint venture. It's a good > > tactic and I don't blame Sourceforge one bit for the opportunity. > > > > The decision wasn't entirely technical so I don't see this as a loss for > > PostgreSQL. DB2 isn't a slouch db by any means but not many companies will be > > able to bargain with IBM as Sourceforge did. If you're a retailer in Topeka > > with 3 locations, I doubt IBM would give you the same attention or joint > > marketing deal they gave Sourceforge. DB2 ain't cheap. > > Actually, I remember quite clearly the incredibly bad performance of > sourceforge's search engine for the better part of a year after switching > out postgresql for db2. It had been quite snappy, and I could enter > database or some other keyword and have a page display in ~2 seconds or > less. For the first three months or so after the switch, most searchs > simply timed out to PHP's default 30 seconds. Even when they got it > working better, it only had maybe 1/10th or less of the keywords indexed > that they had had in postgresql (i.e. words like index or email weren't > being indexed. :-) > > It was probably at least 9 months later that the search engine was finally > back to being usable, and another 3 or 4 before it was about as good as > postgresql. And we're talking an older version (I believe it was 7.1) of > postgresql as well. > > The switch to db2 was driven by partnering business needs, not by poor > performance of postgresql. > It's interesting to get projects metadata so I could setup simple tsearch2 based full text search and see how it could be fast now. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > Regards, Oleg _____________________________________________________________ Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet, Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia) Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
pgsql-general by date: