From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Francois Suter" <dba(at)paragraf(dot)ch> |
Cc: | <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Urgent help needed for press contact |
Date: | 2003-11-05 14:53:47 |
Message-ID: | 303E00EBDD07B943924382E153890E5434AA01@cuthbert.rcsinc.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
> - the 3 strongest points
candidates:
MVCC
Extensibility (particularly wrt languages. Pl/sql, etc.)
Not frequently mentioned, but I find the psql shell to be far superior
to the other's (particularly wrt sql command help sytax) which
translates into easier administration.
- the 3 weakest points
win32 port. beyond that, the other open source databases are simply not
competitive in a broad sense.
- max number of SQL queries per second (that sounds ridiculous, it
Maybe this is not quite so ridiculous. In my particular case, this
happens to be very important. I use postgres to emulate a COBOL file
system for integration with legacy applications. Since COBOL
applications always process one record at a time (think cursors) the
query turnaround time becomes important (assuming network latency is not
a major factor). From my work in this area, I can tell you that, even
on older hardware, pg can process between 200-1000 queries per second
(queries being select * from t where id = x type things), with the
average being about 500. Of course, this is highly dependant on
situational factors.
Generally, though, the database's ability to deal with transactions is
(much) more important. i.e. tpc score.
Regards and Good Luck,
Merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2003-11-05 15:47:36 | Re: Urgent help needed for press contact |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-11-05 12:23:06 | Re: Urgent help needed for press contact |