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

From: "Matt Casters" <Matt(dot)Casters(at)advalvas(dot)be>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Date: 2005-01-20 09:34:35
Message-ID: 16153. (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance

I have the go ahead of a customer to do some testing on Postgresql in a couple of weeks as a
replacement for Oracle.
The reason for the test is that the number of users of the warehouse is going to increase and this
will have a serious impact on licencing costs. (I bet that sounds familiar)

We're running a medium sized data warehouse on a Solaris box (4CPU, 8Gb RAM) on Oracle.
Basically we have 2 large fact tables to deal with: one going for 400M rows, the other will be
hitting 1B rows soon.
(around 250Gb of data)

My questions to the list are: has this sort of thing been attempted before? If so, what where the
performance results compared to Oracle?
I've been reading up on partitioned tabes on pgsql, will the performance benefit will be
comparable to Oracle partitioned tables?
What are the gotchas?
Should I be testing on 8 or the 7 version?
While I didn't find any documents immediately, are there any fine manuals to read on data
warehouse performance tuning on PostgreSQL?

Thanks in advance for any help you may have, I'll do my best to keep pgsql-performance up to date
on the results.

Best regards,

Matt Casters <matt(dot)casters(at)ibridge(dot)be>
i-Bridge bvba,
Fonteinstraat 70, 9400 Okegem, Belgium
Phone +32 (0) 486/97.29.37


  • Re: at 2005-01-20 14:26:03 from Stephen Frost
  • Re: at 2005-01-20 16:31:52 from Greg Stark
  • Re: at 2005-01-20 21:44:09 from Mark Kirkwood

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Bernd HellerDate: 2005-01-20 10:14:28
Subject: column without pg_stats entry?!
Previous:From: Ragnar HafstaĆ°Date: 2005-01-20 09:34:29
Subject: Re: index scan of whole table, can't see why

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group