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

Re: Scalability in postgres

From: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Flavio Henrique Araque Gurgel <flavio(at)4linux(dot)com(dot)br>, Fabrix <fabrixio1(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Scalability in postgres
Date: 2009-05-29 12:41:49
Message-ID: 2f4958ff0905290541s759812a1ifd5fabb14037e55a@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
2009/5/29 Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>:

>
> Both Oracle and PostgreSQL have fairly heavy backend processes, and
> running hundreds of them on either database is a mistake.    Sure,
> Oracle can handle more transactions and scales a bit better, but no
> one wants to have to buy a 128 way E15K to handle the load rather than
> implementing connection pooling.  Show me an Oracle server with 5000
> live, active connections and I'll show you a VERY large and expensive
> cluster of machines.

yes, because for that, oracle has nicer set of features that allows
you to create cluster on cheaper machines, instead of buying one ;)

But other thing, worth noticing from my own experience is that you
have to pay for Oracle so much, just to be able to enjoy it for a bit,
people tend to buy better servers.
It feels more pro if you have to pay for it. That's the observation
from UK, at least.



-- 
GJ

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2009-05-29 12:57:41
Subject: Re: Scalability in postgres
Previous:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2009-05-29 12:37:54
Subject: Re: Scalability in postgres

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