From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rob Nagler <nagler(at)bivio(dot)biz>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: vacuum locking |
Date: | 2003-10-30 00:55:07 |
Message-ID: | 200310291655.07363.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Rob,
> q5 and q6 are too complex to discuss here, but the fundamental issue
> is the order in which postgres decides to do things. The choice for
> me is clear: the developer time trying to figure out how to make the
> planner do the "obviously right thing" has been too high with
> postgres. These tests demonstate to me that for even complex queries,
> oracle wins for our problem.
>
> It looks like we'll be migrating to oracle for this project from these
> preliminary results. It's not just the planner problems. The
> customer is more familiar with oracle, and the vacuum performance is
> another problem.
Hey, we can't win 'em all. If we could, Larry would be circulating his
resume'.
I hope that you'll stay current with PostgreSQL developments so that you can
do a similarly thourough evaluation for your next project.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | CHEWTC | 2003-10-30 03:45:00 | Postgresql vs OS compatibility matrix |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-30 00:03:18 | Re: vacuum locking |