> > Background: > > 1. I read people were using PostGreSQL with TeraBytes of data > > sometimes, or thousands of users. These are things that could easily > > break SQL Server. - So I thought PostGreSQL might be similar fast to > > SQL Server. 2. I did some tests: Windows XP SP2 > > Several GIGs free harddisk, ~400 MB free RAM > > Java 1.5 / JDBC > > PostGreSQL 8.0 beta (through Windows Installer), default > > configuration, default driver SQL Server 2000 SP3a, default > > configuration, SQL Server like mysql, is very 'noob friendly'...it doesn't require a lot of configuration to be quick is forgiving of lousy access strategies to the database (these are good things btw). PostgreSQL 8.0b was still using old style win32 fsync which maps to flushfilebuffers()...this is an an ultra conservative way of flushing ot disk so this is not apples to apples comparison. That said, SQL Server will be very hard to beat with write performance on windows because it is very tuned to the win32 api and has very efficient disk access. In the mean time for a fairer test you have to turn fsync off in postgresql.conf and you definately want to be running pg 8.1 which has tons of improvements for win32 and a more efficient syncer...although in windows for production database I would highly suggest targeting a caching raid controller. I am right now in the development planning phase of a PostgreSQL databse which has to scale well into the terabyte range. I can tell you without hesitation that the database can handle it and deserves the reputation of a workhorse that it has. Administrating pg is a bit harder to get into but well help you understand what a database is really all about and how to make your data access elegant and efficient. Merlin
