Re: vacuum locking

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Rob Nagler <nagler(at)bivio(dot)biz>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: vacuum locking
Date: 2003-10-30 00:55:07
Message-ID: 200310291655.07363.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Rob,

> q5 and q6 are too complex to discuss here, but the fundamental issue
> is the order in which postgres decides to do things. The choice for
> me is clear: the developer time trying to figure out how to make the
> planner do the "obviously right thing" has been too high with
> postgres. These tests demonstate to me that for even complex queries,
> oracle wins for our problem.
>
> It looks like we'll be migrating to oracle for this project from these
> preliminary results. It's not just the planner problems. The
> customer is more familiar with oracle, and the vacuum performance is
> another problem.

Hey, we can't win 'em all. If we could, Larry would be circulating his
resume'.

I hope that you'll stay current with PostgreSQL developments so that you can
do a similarly thourough evaluation for your next project.

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message CHEWTC 2003-10-30 03:45:00 Postgresql vs OS compatibility matrix
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-10-30 00:03:18 Re: vacuum locking