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

Re: Postgres vs. Progress performance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: John Wells <jb(at)sourceillustrated(dot)com>,"pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Postgres vs. Progress performance
Date: 2003-09-29 19:19:55
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> i feel pretty confident that postgresql can handle your workload without
> much trouble, you just need to give it enough hardware. 

I guess the interesting question is how much iron are they using to
handle the workload now on Progress?  Really there's no doubt that PG
can handle the load, the question is what size box would you have to
run it on, and whether that's cost-effective compared to Progress'

I vaguely recall some past statements by Progress-to-PG migrators to
the effect that they found PG's performance just fine by comparison.
Try digging in the mail list archives (although "progress" is likely
to be a horrible search term :-()

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: scott.marloweDate: 2003-09-29 19:33:24
Subject: Re: [SQL] Result set granularity..
Previous:From: Bjørn T JohansenDate: 2003-09-29 19:19:42
Subject: Re: Time problem again?

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