From: | Gunnar R|nning <gunnar(at)candleweb(dot)no> |
---|---|
To: | "Steve Wolfe" <steve(at)iboats(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: how good is PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2000-11-01 00:58:55 |
Message-ID: | x6hf5s33u8.fsf@thor.candleweb.no |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
"Steve Wolfe" <steve(at)iboats(dot)com> writes:
> One of our competitors spent a very, very large deal of money on high-end
> Sun equipment, so that they could write their CGI stuff in Java servlets.
> It still ran slow. We run Perl on machines that pale compared to theirs,
> and get far better performance. : )
You can always do it slow if you don't design properly. A former customer
saved a lot hardware and maintenance cost by migrating from a perl based
publishing system to a Java based one. Less hardware, better performance and
more functionality. ;-) The old perl system had been developed and maintained
over a 4 year period - the initial development of the new Java based system
took about 9 months.
regards,
Gunnar
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Mercer | 2000-11-01 01:08:59 | Re: how good is PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Alex Pilosov | 2000-11-01 00:58:31 | Re: True ACID under linux (no fsync)? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Mercer | 2000-11-01 01:08:59 | Re: how good is PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | KuroiNeko | 2000-11-01 00:51:05 | Re: how good is PostgreSQL |