On 12/17/10 9:08 AM, Tom Polak wrote:
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.
You need to analyze the total cost of the system. For the price of MSSQL and Windows, you can probably buy a couple more really nice servers, or one Really Big Server that would walk all over a Windows/MSSQL system of the same total cost (hardware+software). But that said, if Postgres is properly tuned and your application tuned to make good use of Postgres' features, it will compare well with any modern database.
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.
RAID5 is a Really Bad Idea for any database. It is S...L...O...W. It does NOT give better redundancy and security; RAID 10 with a battery-backed RAID controller card is massively better for performance and just as good for redundancy and security. Craig -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
