On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:07 AM, <AMatveev@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi
>> >> The test performs about 11K lines of code
>> >> Oracle: about 5M
>> >> postgreSql: about 160М
> Do you have 100 CPUs on this system which apparently doesn't have 16G
> of RAM available for PG to use?
We can say at fact:
We currently work at oracle.
Our code base about 4000 k line of code
In out last project we have:
3000 current connection
200 active session
So 16g it's very optimistic.
Of course we think about buy hardware or software.
It's other question.
So with this memory consumption it can be really cheaper to by Oracle.
> If not, you should probably consider connection pooling to reduce the
> number of PG sessions to something approaching the number of CPUs/cores
> you have in the system.
It's possible only with application server,
for local network thick client has reasonable advantages.
We just can't implement today all functions on thin client.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
What is the actual O/S that PostgreSQL is installed on?
How much total memory is on the server?
I would be very curious about the values you have specified in postgresql.conf?
Also, what is the exact version of PostgreSQL you are using?
What is the total time to complete the test for all 3 DB's?
The best I can tell is that with all the unknowns, you are comparing apples to oranges.
The best I can tell is that with all the unknowns, you are comparing apples to oranges.
Melvin Davidson
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.![]()
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
