| From: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Flavio Henrique Araque Gurgel <flavio(at)4linux(dot)com(dot)br>, Fabrix <fabrixio1(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Scalability in postgres |
| Date: | 2009-05-29 12:41:49 |
| Message-ID: | 2f4958ff0905290541s759812a1ifd5fabb14037e55a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
2009/5/29 Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
> Both Oracle and PostgreSQL have fairly heavy backend processes, and
> running hundreds of them on either database is a mistake. Sure,
> Oracle can handle more transactions and scales a bit better, but no
> one wants to have to buy a 128 way E15K to handle the load rather than
> implementing connection pooling. Show me an Oracle server with 5000
> live, active connections and I'll show you a VERY large and expensive
> cluster of machines.
yes, because for that, oracle has nicer set of features that allows
you to create cluster on cheaper machines, instead of buying one ;)
But other thing, worth noticing from my own experience is that you
have to pay for Oracle so much, just to be able to enjoy it for a bit,
people tend to buy better servers.
It feels more pro if you have to pay for it. That's the observation
from UK, at least.
--
GJ
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-05-29 12:57:41 | Re: Scalability in postgres |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-05-29 12:37:54 | Re: Scalability in postgres |