Re: more anti-postgresql FUD

> Face it, if one does hundreds updates per second for one table (that's
> exactly what ZABBIX does, and not for one record(!) table as in my
> simple test), performance degrades so fast that vacuum has to be
> executed once per 5-15 seconds to keep good performance. The vacuum
> will run at least several seconds with high disk io. Do you think it
> won't make "PostgreSQL at least 10x slower than MySQL" as stated in the
> manual? What we are discussing here? :)

I am not sure what we are discussing actually. It is well know that
PostgreSQL can not do the type of update load you are talking. Even with
autovacuum.

Now, there are ways to make postgresql be able to handle this *if* you
know what you are doing with things like partitioning but out of the
box, this guy is right.

That being said, innodb would likely suffer from the same problems and
the only reason his app works the way it does is because he is using MyISAM.

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate