Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27479FB4B4 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:15:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 52687-02 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:15:48 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C949FB453 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:15:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k40so353294wah for ; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:15:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=S7sE+CwfEYUuaZCC4/otCs31TbbopREHAQwM5ibS3u0O4z5MfWXCPGCvpSAjQzeQpbvA/EbkEOt7pRV1mLLIaO2IarTa8mq7oCTmCrP+Uv7YvaRQ3CGgswbhp4rvMcKC8No5U9AkLTsjF7dCm/ay8fRKs8Y9KzSrXbtzID994rs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=jYWKsxpHSliDtn5ypee/dF9fd2qu7TANvq+wDJx1jNq5JHETFCiVEQo7z/1HtHBcXM0Do5x7N1lrHUo4vCIIjLAxYXq0f2+EOI5CUZqTzJQcSYz1jfwWhTyyMoQW8dRvN2sCxVK9krOZegi81FXmQnW+wYyAYJfWX44g/2AtDuo= Received: by 10.115.14.1 with SMTP id r1mr704123wai.1181153748642; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.183.2 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <36e682920706061115i4f77c55ale3ecad5aaa31512@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 14:15:48 -0400 From: "Jonah H. Harris" To: "Craig James" Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table? Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <4666EF9D.90500@emolecules.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <466593E5.1010904@g2switchworks.com> <87sl96z0wf.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <10525.1181080765@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4666DF99.3010809@emolecules.com> <4666E5A0.40604@g2switchworks.com> <4666EF9D.90500@emolecules.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200706/100 X-Sequence-Number: 25133 On 6/6/07, Craig James wrote: > Last time I checked, Oracle didn't have anything close to this. When did you check, 15 years ago? Oracle has direct-path import/export and data pump; both of which make generic COPY look like a turtle. The new PostgreSQL bulk-loader takes similar concepts from Oracle and is fairly faster than COPY. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-PostgreSQL... but spouting personal observations on other databases as facts just boasts an PostgreSQL-centric egotistical view of the world. If you don't tune Oracle, it will suck. If you don't understand Oracle architecture when you tune an application, it will suck; just like PostgreSQL. People who don't have extensive experience in the other databases just hear what you say and regurgitate it as fact; which it is not. Look at how many people in these lists still go on and on about MySQL flaws based on their experience with MySQL 3.23. Times change and it doesn't do anyone any good to be ignorant of other databases. If you're going to speak about another database in a comparison, please stay current or specify the database you're comparing against. This is nothing against you, but it always starts an avalanche of, "look how perfect we are compared to everyone else." -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/