Re: scale up (postgresql vs mssql)

hi,

thanks a lot to all of you for your help.

(i'm sorry i did not know how to reply to a certain message)

i found that the best number of active connections is indeed 8-10. with
8-10 active connections postgresql did ~170 "account-id"s. this is still
only half of what mssql did, but it now makes sence, considering that mssql
works close to twice faster.

i "played" with work_mem, shared_buffers, temp_buffers. i ran the tests
with both of the following configurations, but no significant difference
was found.

thanks again for any more help.

"version";"PostgreSQL 9.1.2 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc
(GCC) 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-46), 64-bit"
"bytea_output";"escape"
"client_encoding";"UNICODE"
"lc_collate";"en_US.UTF-8"
"lc_ctype";"en_US.UTF-8"
"listen_addresses";"*"
"log_destination";"stderr"
"log_line_prefix";"%t "
"logging_collector";"on"
"max_connections";"100"
"max_stack_depth";"2MB"
"server_encoding";"UTF8"
"shared_buffers";"32MB"
"TimeZone";"Israel"
"wal_buffers";"1MB"

"version";"PostgreSQL 9.1.2 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc
(GCC) 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-46), 64-bit"
"bytea_output";"escape"
"client_encoding";"UNICODE"
"lc_collate";"en_US.UTF-8"
"lc_ctype";"en_US.UTF-8"
"listen_addresses";"*"
"log_destination";"stderr"
"log_line_prefix";"%t "
"logging_collector";"on"
"max_connections";"100"
"max_stack_depth";"2MB"
"port";"5432"
"server_encoding";"UTF8"
"shared_buffers";"3GB"
"temp_buffers";"64MB"
"TimeZone";"Israel"
"wal_buffers";"16MB"
"work_mem";"20MB"