Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC7B9FA339 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2007 00:23:19 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 46151-03 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2007 00:23:10 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from vms044pub.verizon.net (vms044pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.44]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5CB9F9FB2 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2007 00:23:09 -0400 (AST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.66.94.209]) by vms044.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JBH00E51DIATKUA@vms044.mailsrvcs.net> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2007 22:22:59 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 23:22:58 -0500 From: Guy Rouillier Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS In-reply-to: <459F1421.9090905@modgraph-usa.com> To: PostgreSQL Performance Message-id: <45A075A2.9090906@burntmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0701-1, 01/05/2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean References: <45935A49.6080602@burntmail.com> <459F0EA6.30403@burntmail.com> <459F1421.9090905@modgraph-usa.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.005 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, BAYES_50, SARE_MILLIONSOF, SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200701/80 X-Sequence-Number: 22681 Craig A. James wrote: > I don't know if you have access to the application's SQL, or the time to > experiment a bit, but unless your schema is trival and your SQL is > boneheaded simple, you're not going to get equal performance from > Postgres until you do some analysis of your application under real-world > conditions, and optimize the problem areas. Craig, thanks for taking the time to think about this. Yes, I have all the application source code, and all the time in the world, as I'm doing this experimentation on my own time. The test hardware is old stuff no one intends to use for production work ever again, so I can use it as long as I want. The application is fairly straightforward, but as you say, what is working okay with BigDBMS isn't working as well under PG. I'm going to try other configuration suggestions made by others before I attempt logic changes. The core logic is unchangeable; millions of rows of data in a single table will be updated throughout the day. If PG can't handle high volume updates well, this may be brick wall. -- Guy Rouillier