| From: | Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Polak <tom(at)rockfordarearealtors(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows |
| Date: | 2010-12-17 17:36:36 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikJAx46k9AU5Kn7D14JqTYXV_zpkPmwrDGDbKdH@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Tom Polak
<tom(at)rockfordarearealtors(dot)org> wrote:
> What kind of performance can I expect out of Postgres compare to MSSQL?
You should take any generalizations with a grain of salt. I suggest
that you do a POC.
> Let's assume that Postgres is running on Cent OS x64 and MSSQL is running
> on Windows 2008 x64, both are on identical hardware running RAID 5 (for
> data redundancy/security), SAS drives 15k RPM, dual XEON Quad core CPUs,
> 24 GB of RAM.
RAID-5 = suckage for databases.
Things to think about:
How big is your data set and how big is your working set?
Do you have a raid card? Is it properly configured?
--
Rob Wultsch
wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-17 17:37:40 | Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows |
| Previous Message | Richard Broersma | 2010-12-17 17:33:13 | Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows |