So, I am back on this topic again. I have a related question, but this might be the correct thread (and please let me know that). The boss is pressing the issue because of the cost of MSSQL. What kind of performance can I expect out of Postgres compare to MSSQL? Let's assume that Postgres is running on Cent OS x64 and MSSQL is running on Windows 2008 x64, both are on identical hardware running RAID 5 (for data redundancy/security), SAS drives 15k RPM, dual XEON Quad core CPUs, 24 GB of RAM. I have searched around and I do not see anyone ever really compare the two in terms of performance. I have learned from this thread that Postgres needs a lot of configuration to perform the best. We provide the MLS service to our members. Our data goes back to 1997 and nothing is ever deleted. Here is a general overview of our current MSSQL setup. We have over 10GB of data in a couple of tables (no pictures are stored in SQL server). Our searches do a lot of joins to combine data to display a listing, history, comparables, etc. We probably do 3 or 4 reads for every write in the database. Any comparisons in terms of performance would be great. If not, how can I quickly truly compare the two systems myself without coding everything to work for both? Thoughts? Opinions? Thanks, Tom Polak Rockford Area Association of Realtors 815-395-6776 x203 The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and reply email. Thank you. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any viruses or other defects that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is free of viruses, and the Rockford Area Association of Realtors hereby disclaims any liability for any loss or damage that results. -----Original Message----- From: Pierre C [mailto:lists@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 5:36 PM To: pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Tom Polak Subject: Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows > The hardware it > is running on is fairly good, dual Xeon CPUs, 4 GB of RAM, Raid 5. For a database you'd want to consider replacing the RAID1 with a RAID1 (or RAID10). RAID5 is slow for small random updates, which are common in databases. Since you probably have enough harddisks anyway, this won't cost you. Linux or freebsd would also be better choices for postgres rather than windows. Also, as said, your issue looks very much like a problem in the way your application communicates with postgres : if it takes postgres 5 ms to process the query and your application gets the result 8 seconds later, there is a problem. Note that SQL Server probably takes just a few ms for such a simple query, too, so your not really benchmarking SQL server either. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
