Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.

> ["very, very offtopic"]
> Ok. This comparition is just as useless as the other one,
> because it's comparing oranges with apples (It's funny
> anyway). I was just choosing an example in which you can see
> the best of postgresql against 'not so nice' behavior of
> mssql2000 (no service pack, it's my desktop system, I'll do
> the same test later with SP4 and different isolation levels
> and I'll check results).

There will be no difference in the service packs.
SQL 2005 has "MVCC" (they call it something different, of course, but
that's basicallyi what it is)

> Furthermore, MSSQL2000 is 5 years
> old now. Does anybody has the same cellular phone, or
> computer? (I don't want to know :-) ). The big question is

There is a big difference between your database and your cellphone.
There are a lot of systems out there running very solidly on older
products like MSSQL 7 (probably even some on 6.x), as well as Oracle 7,8
and 9...
I'd say there is generally a huge difference in reliabilty in your
cellphone hw/sw than there is in your db hw/sw. I have yet to see a
cellphone that can run for a year without a reboot (or with a lot of
brands, complete replacement).

//Magnus