| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "TJ O'Donnell" <tjo(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postgres vs. oracle for very large tables |
| Date: | 2006-06-14 02:08:33 |
| Message-ID: | 448F6FA1.7060106@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 12:24:51PM -0700, TJ O'Donnell wrote:
>> I've written some extensions to postgres to implement
>> chemical structure searching. I get inquiries about
>> the performance of postgres vs. oracle. This is a huge
>> topic, with lots of opinions and lots of facts. But,
>> today I got some feedback stating the opinion that:
>> "Postgres performance diminishes with large tables
>> (we?ll be going to upwards of hundreds of millions of rows)."
It really depends. I have many customers with hundred of millions of
rows that don't have ANY problems.
Sincerely,
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/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jdwatson1@gmail.com | 2006-06-14 03:31:02 | Re: Searching BLOB - Lucene setup & problem |
| Previous Message | Samad, Alex | 2006-06-14 02:01:45 | postgres and ldap |