pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Cc: Divakar Singh <dpsmails@yahoo.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Mladen Gogala <mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:42:19 +0200
Message-ID: <4CC8728B.9050205@krogh.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin90tsRz4BNQP1gqrg6zCpQp0Yt0bQXKQHC22Ps@mail.gmail.com>
References: <402913.53404.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTi=0iZDF7EHebukEJ+jxFN8giCy3iXxYuSe_mLUY@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=cy67frLbx+YH_uUk5vqPsxt8u-Q_cpU74pYMq@mail.gmail.com>
	<208728.42197.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTikeYj52q1v1RcwCYR=9Kv5mxJmh+Q+KvXcmibYK@mail.gmail.com>
	<770715.39613.qm@web29003.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTinaW3ZtGJbzgAARG0WfAOJxSPAbdVAZa6X_2dh+@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CC741FF.8050709@vmsinfo.com>
	<AANLkTinntqfT1b9xaRfGGqVwwsGhyA7=JhLsuQ10Xzyy@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CC74E31.6060307@vmsinfo.com>
	<AANLkTimf9Nj8A+Spiu9q3suvZ+h71CHXRFTXFo_5aBYj@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=-fK6ODDNJPntq3OeUJQzKtHbsmkdDM851waOG@mail.gmail.com>
	<252538.42200.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTik1Acnzpm62XgHADZtZ0sgkxSo=43jKrX7+N_f1@mail.gmail.com>
	<173298.80592.qm@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTin90tsRz4BNQP1gqrg6zCpQp0Yt0bQXKQHC22Ps@mail.gmail.com>

On 2010-10-27 20:28, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Postgres indexes are pretty compact, and oracle (internals I am not
> familiar with) also has to do MVCC type management, so I am suspecting
> your measurement is off (aka, operator error) or oracle is cheating
> somehow by optimizing away storage requirements somehow via some sort
> of tradeoff.  However you still fail to explain why storage size is a
> problem.  Are planning to port oracle to postgres on a volume that is
> 50% full? :-)
>    
Pretty ignorant comment.. sorry ..

But when your database approaches something that is not mainly
fitting in memory, space directly translates into speed and a more
compact table utillizes the OS-page cache better. This is both
true for index and table page caching.

And the more compact your table the later you hit the stage where
you cant fit into memory anymore.

.. but if above isn't issues, then your statements are true.

-- 
Jesper



view thread (53+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <4CC8728B.9050205@krogh.cc>
Permalink:  ../4CC8728B.9050205@krogh.cc/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/4CC8728B.9050205@krogh.cc

 · 

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: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
  Cc: jesper@krogh.cc, mmoncure@gmail.com, dpsmails@yahoo.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com
  Subject: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
  In-Reply-To: <4CC8728B.9050205@krogh.cc>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox