public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Ron Johnson <[email protected]>
To: Pgsql-admin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Migration from MSSQL to POSTGRESQL
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 09:45:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CANzqJaCyt9HUa1jG0Lx_zY+Wmw0bX-O9kKWtHe3p-1JcBCOoZQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJk5AtYYmxWH6Tbp-3dAiMKd3Ynu4J6ajtOc48rKsa1s3Kk0SA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJk5AtY9E2E3tL3=1zt82LBZK7Q8BkH65BNG=43oa3qWLrPAtg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAFVRaQ2zxmVY+zqADEv2hqo9uR6Q-iYn0v2MQ2EKUtv+yRZKsA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJk5AtYYmxWH6Tbp-3dAiMKd3Ynu4J6ajtOc48rKsa1s3Kk0SA@mail.gmail.com>
In the one Oracle -> Postgresql migration I did (where I came in after the
AWS RDS Postgresql VMs were already sped'ed and were 1:1 the same as the
Oracle servers:
- disk usage was 1/3 lower
- both CPU and RAM were 75% over-specified. (They could be chopped in half
and performance would still be good.)
But, of course, your mileage not only might vary, but *it will vary*.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 3:38 AM Raj <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry, it's Oracle to POSTGRESQL migration.
>
> I apologize for the confusion.
>
> Please suggest based on Oracle.
>
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2025, 14:00 Tayyab Fayyaz, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hello Raj,
>>
>> It really depends on how much of those 64 vCPUs and 250GB RAM your SQL
>> Server actually uses today, and whether you’re running on a physical box or
>> a virtual machine.
>>
>> PostgreSQL doesn’t have a 1:1 sizing formula against SQL Server. I’d
>> first look at real CPU/memory usage, workload pattern (OLTP vs reporting),
>> and how connections/queries behave. I’d also factor in how well we can
>> migrate and map the data types and queries, because good type choices and
>> query rewrites can significantly reduce resource usage.
>>
>> -
>>
>> *If it’s a physical server*, I’d start with similar hardware for
>> PostgreSQL and then tune Postgres parameters (shared_buffers, work_mem,
>> etc.) based on monitoring.
>> -
>>
>> *If it’s a VM*, I’d provision a bit more capacity than the current
>> SQL Server allocation to give some headroom for tuning and unexpected
>> overhead, and then right-size after observing the real load in PostgreSQL.
>>
>> Once the migration is done and in steady use, we can monitor CPU, memory,
>> and I/O in PostgreSQL and then optimise or scale down/up based on real
>> metrics instead of guessing up front.
>>
>>
>> Tayyab
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:14 PM Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2025-12-01 at 08:46 +0530, Raj wrote:
>>> > I am migrating from MSSQL to POSTGRESQL. In MSSQL, I am using 64 vCPU
>>> and 250GB RAM.
>>> > Now how much we can give in postgres?
>>>
>>> If these specifications worked for you with Microsoft SQL Server, use
>>> the same
>>> with PostgreSQL. If you can, don't use Windows.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Laurenz Albe
>>>
>>>
>>>
--
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Migration from MSSQL to POSTGRESQL
In-Reply-To: <CANzqJaCyt9HUa1jG0Lx_zY+Wmw0bX-O9kKWtHe3p-1JcBCOoZQ@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox