Re: how good is PostgreSQL

From: Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net>
To: Steve Wolfe <steve(at)iboats(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: how good is PostgreSQL
Date: 2000-11-02 19:14:16
Message-ID: 3A01BD08.5141A849@selectacast.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Performance depends on a lot of factors. Shelling out $$$ for Sun
hardware doesn't garuntee good performance. They might have been better
off buying a Tru64 system with Compaq's jdk.

Steve Wolfe wrote:
>
> > d) PHP may not be a great choice. It doesn't provide a lot of hooks
> > for effective caching of database connections and/or results.
> > mod_perl or Java servlets may be better, depending on the details.
>
> One of our competitors spent a very, very large deal of money on high-end
> Sun equipment, so that they could write their CGI stuff in Java servlets.
> It still ran slow. We run Perl on machines that pale compared to theirs,
> and get far better performance. : )
>
> steve

--
Joseph Shraibman
jks(at)selectacast(dot)net
Increase signal to noise ratio. http://www.targabot.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lamar Owen 2000-11-02 19:22:19 Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)
Previous Message Nathan Suderman 2000-11-02 19:05:41 the List! the List

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2000-11-02 19:14:36 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/contrib/pg_dumpaccounts (Makefile README pg_dumpaccounts.sh)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-11-02 18:56:29 Re: Re: [GENERAL] Query caching