Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: vacuum locking

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Rob Nagler <nagler(at)bivio(dot)biz>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: vacuum locking
Date: 2003-10-30 00:55:07
Message-ID: 200310291655.07363.josh@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Rob,

> 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 
resume'.

I hope that you'll stay current with PostgreSQL developments so that you can 
do a similarly thourough evaluation for your next project.

-- 
-Josh Berkus
 Aglio Database Solutions
 San Francisco


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: CHEWTCDate: 2003-10-30 03:45:00
Subject: Postgresql vs OS compatibility matrix
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-10-30 00:03:18
Subject: Re: vacuum locking

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group