On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Will Rutherdale (rutherw) <rutherw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I am *not* primarily interested in embedded, but I know people who are, and I have already compared with SQLite. > > My main point of concern right now is for more middle sized platforms (such as an average workstation), to be able to answer the question of how Postgres shows in transactions per second against another RDBMS or two. > Way back right after the earth's crust had cooled I deployed a corporate intranet on pgsql 6.5.2. I believe we had Wooly Mammoth for dinner that night. It took a fair bit of work to keep that machine happy, and every new version was an eye opener in terms of performance, reliability, and capability improvements. By the time 8.0 came out I was more than prepared to use it for some pretty hefty work. Now that 8.3 is out and 8.4 is out, for any kind of intermediate size application (thousands of users daily, hundreds of gigs of data) I'll put PostgreSQL against any other DBMS and expect it to do well. Where I work now, we handle 1.5 million or so users, a large chunk of which log in each day, several times a day. We had to beef up our servers to 8 core / 16 drive machines (two of them) to handle the load reliably. We have enough spare capacity to handle about 3 to 4 times the number of users we now have. You are far more likely to be bitten by lack of familiarity with ANY db you choose, and the real issue will be support and training. Oracle, Pgsql, DB2, Interbase / Firebird, MySQL w/ innodb can all handle the kind of load you've kind of hand waved about here. How much money and time you'll spend setting them up, learning them, supporting them, and using them will be far more important than anything a benchmark is likely to tell you right now. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
