From: | "Harpreet Dhaliwal" <harpreet(dot)dhaliwal01(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Erik Jones" <erik(at)myemma(dot)com>, "Chris Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS |
Date: | 2007-05-26 17:31:06 |
Message-ID: | d86a77ef0705261031l7c6c55d2w33ab5a1a181f5cff@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
is the host base configuration methodology in postgres superior to other
RDBMS.
is this something novel that postgres has come up with?
~Harpreet
On 5/26/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> A more interesting question is what sort of hardware you need for that
> >> actually to be a win, though. Loading a few tables in parallel sounds
> >> like an ideal recipe for oversaturating your disk bandwidth...
>
> > you don't actually need that much of disk bandwidth both COPY and CREATE
> > INDEX are CPU bottlenecked on modern boxes and reasonable disk
> > subsystems - spreading their work over multiple cores/processes can give
> > big benefits.
>
> Hmm ... I wonder if that's true for COPY BINARY ...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zoltan Boszormenyi | 2007-05-26 18:18:24 | Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS |
Previous Message | Richard P. Welty | 2007-05-26 16:30:40 | Re: backup strategies |