Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:26:59 -0600
From: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>
To: Ruben Rubio Rey <ruben@rentalia.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Query time
Message-ID: <20060310152659.GG45250@pervasive.com>
References: 
 <C7AD32F362B7914488D0267D1537DDC9306016@AZ18EV805.global.ds.honeywell.com>
	<44115521.1040805@rentalia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <44115521.1040805@rentalia.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11

On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:29:53AM +0100, Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
> There is not possibility to use another database. It's the best option I 
> have seen. We have been working in postgres in last 3 years, and this is 
> the first problem I have seen. (The database is working in a large 
> website, 6.000 visits per day in a dedicated server)
> 
> Any other idea?
> 
> 
> Chethana, Rao (IE10) wrote:
> 
> >USUALLY POSTGRES DATABASE TAKES MORE TIME, COMPARED TO OTHER DATABASES. 
> >HOWEVER U CAN FINETUNE THE PERFORMANCE OF POSTGRESQL.
> >IF U HAVE AN OPTION GO FOR SQLITE, MYSQL OR FIREBIRD.

If I were you I wouldn't believe any performance recommendations from
someone who can't find their caps-lock key or spell "you".

The fact is, on any meaningful benchmark current versions of PostgreSQL
are on par with other databases. Any benchmark that shows PostgreSQL to
be 'slow' is almost certain to be very old and/or does a very poor job
of reflecting how client-server databases are normally used. The one
caveat is that PostgreSQL is often overkill for single user embedded
database type apps.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461