Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

From: "Pierre C" <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Tom Polak" <tom(at)rockfordarearealtors(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows
Date: 2010-12-08 23:35:34
Message-ID: op.vne45kfjeorkce@apollo13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

> The hardware it
> is running on is fairly good, dual Xeon CPUs, 4 GB of RAM, Raid 5.

For a database you'd want to consider replacing the RAID1 with a RAID1 (or
RAID10). RAID5 is slow for small random updates, which are common in
databases. Since you probably have enough harddisks anyway, this won't
cost you. Linux or freebsd would also be better choices for postgres
rather than windows.

Also, as said, your issue looks very much like a problem in the way your
application communicates with postgres : if it takes postgres 5 ms to
process the query and your application gets the result 8 seconds later,
there is a problem. Note that SQL Server probably takes just a few ms for
such a simple query, too, so your not really benchmarking SQL server
either.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marti Raudsepp 2010-12-09 00:02:54 Re: Hardware recommendations
Previous Message John W Strange 2010-12-08 23:31:51 Re: Hardware recommendations