> q5 and q6 are too complex to discuss here, but the fundamental issue
> is the order in which postgres decides to do things. The choice for
> me is clear: the developer time trying to figure out how to make the
> planner do the "obviously right thing" has been too high with
> postgres. These tests demonstate to me that for even complex queries,
> oracle wins for our problem.
> It looks like we'll be migrating to oracle for this project from these
> preliminary results. It's not just the planner problems. The
> customer is more familiar with oracle, and the vacuum performance is
> another problem.
Hey, we can't win 'em all. If we could, Larry would be circulating his
I hope that you'll stay current with PostgreSQL developments so that you can
do a similarly thourough evaluation for your next project.
Aglio Database Solutions
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: CHEWTC||Date: 2003-10-30 03:45:00|
|Subject: Postgresql vs OS compatibility matrix|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-10-30 00:03:18|
|Subject: Re: vacuum locking |