Message-ID: <20100331151924.174773g693l639c0@webmail.kwsoft.de>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:19:24 +0200
From: lst_hoe02@kwsoft.de
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Any good olap benchmarks?
References: <4BB32420.2080707@greenmice.info>
	<4BB32E2F.8030304@2ndquadrant.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BB32E2F.8030304@2ndquadrant.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=ISO-8859-1;
 DelSp="Yes";
 format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.3.6)

Zitat von Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>:

> I've linked to everything I'm aware of at  
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Category:Benchmarking and the TPC-H  
> page has probably the most relevant information for OLAP.   
> PostgreSQL doesn't do particularly well on OLAP benchmarks yet due  
> to how queries are limited by a single processor, making it hard to  
> get excited about publishing the results.
>
> Greenplum ran some interesting tests of their own software against  
> PostgreSQL at http://community.greenplum.com/showthread.php?t=113  
> you might find interesting.  That includes a fairly easy to use  
> TPC-H like test kit program, and by showing where they did much  
> better is suggest the areas that community Postgres struggles  
> relative to software that handles parallel query across multiple  
> cores/servers.

I maybe wrong but this looks like "partitioning" PostgreSQL to me???