Re: Linux ready for high-volume databases?

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, scott.marlowe wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Al Hulaton wrote:
>
> > After seeing this article yesterday, I did a bit of research. One _big_ reason
> > why Sourceforge/VA/OSDN is moving over to IBM/Webshere/DB2 from PostgreSQL is
> > the resulting product will be jointly marketed by Sourceforge and IBM's
> > zillions of sales people. So not only will they get a shiny, new db, but
> > backend revenue.
> >
> > "The companies will jointly market and sell the software as part of the
> > commercial agreement. "-- 4th paragraph, last sentence.
> > http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3668,a=30025,00.asp
> >
> > "In a separate announcement today, VA Software announced a significant
> > commercial agreement with IBM focused on the joint marketing and sales of the
> > next generation of SourceForgeтДв Enterprise Edition." -- 7th paragram from
> > their press release at
> > http://www.vasoftware.com/news/press.php/2002/1070.html
> >
> > Perhaps the PostgreSQL team bidding for the job, if any were even consulted,
> > didn't frame the project as IBM did -- a product joint venture. It's a good
> > tactic and I don't blame Sourceforge one bit for the opportunity.
> >
> > The decision wasn't entirely technical so I don't see this as a loss for
> > PostgreSQL. DB2 isn't a slouch db by any means but not many companies will be
> > able to bargain with IBM as Sourceforge did. If you're a retailer in Topeka
> > with 3 locations, I doubt IBM would give you the same attention or joint
> > marketing deal they gave Sourceforge. DB2 ain't cheap.
>
> Actually, I remember quite clearly the incredibly bad performance of
> sourceforge's search engine for the better part of a year after switching
> out postgresql for db2. It had been quite snappy, and I could enter
> database or some other keyword and have a page display in ~2 seconds or
> less. For the first three months or so after the switch, most searchs
> simply timed out to PHP's default 30 seconds. Even when they got it
> working better, it only had maybe 1/10th or less of the keywords indexed
> that they had had in postgresql (i.e. words like index or email weren't
> being indexed. :-)
>
> It was probably at least 9 months later that the search engine was finally
> back to being usable, and another 3 or 4 before it was about as good as
> postgresql. And we're talking an older version (I believe it was 7.1) of
> postgresql as well.
>
> The switch to db2 was driven by partnering business needs, not by poor
> performance of postgresql.
>

It's interesting to get projects metadata so I could setup simple
tsearch2 based full text search and see how it could be fast now.

>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
>

Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83