Re: RE : RE: 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(at)loxane(dot)com <bsimon(at)loxane(dot)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(at)arbinet(dot)com>
>
> 05/04/2005 20:48
>
> Pour : <bsimon(at)loxane(dot)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(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf
> Of bsimon(at)loxane(dot)com
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 4:02 AM
> To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)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.
>
>
>