Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C240613364DE for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:32:43 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 84269-07 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:32:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com (mail-vw0-f46.google.com [209.85.212.46]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57649133616B for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:32:36 -0400 (AST) Received: by vws16 with SMTP id 16so303836vws.19 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:32:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.194.141 with SMTP id dy13mr309131vcb.15.1292607155623; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:32:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from Craig-Jamess-MacBook-Pro.local (wsip-70-167-124-126.sd.sd.cox.net [70.167.124.126]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u4sm122411vch.12.2010.12.17.09.32.33 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:32:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D0B9EB0.1070708@emolecules.com> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:32:32 -0800 From: Craig James User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows References: <378e24d1e3af88a49fbbb7c4d26f441a@mail.gmail.com> <4CFE7964.80206@squeakycode.net> <4CFE8E59.2010505@squeakycode.net> <20101207201028.GE4028@aart.is.rice.edu> <4CFE97B4.8090708@squeakycode.net> <70e424e558d87f649f149bf2948d73cb@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <70e424e558d87f649f149bf2948d73cb@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201012/215 X-Sequence-Number: 41667 On 12/17/10 9:08 AM, Tom Polak wrote: > So, I am back on this topic again. > I have a related question, but this might be the correct thread (and > please let me know that). The boss is pressing the issue because of the > cost of MSSQL. You need to analyze the total cost of the system. For the price of MSSQL and Windows, you can probably buy a couple more really nice servers, or one Really Big Server that would walk all over a Windows/MSSQL system of the same total cost (hardware+software). But that said, if Postgres is properly tuned and your application tuned to make good use of Postgres' features, it will compare well with any modern database. > What kind of performance can I expect out of Postgres compare to MSSQL? > Let's assume that Postgres is running on Cent OS x64 and MSSQL is running > on Windows 2008 x64, both are on identical hardware running RAID 5 (for > data redundancy/security), SAS drives 15k RPM, dual XEON Quad core CPUs, > 24 GB of RAM. RAID5 is a Really Bad Idea for any database. It is S...L...O...W. It does NOT give better redundancy and security; RAID 10 with a battery-backed RAID controller card is massively better for performance and just as good for redundancy and security. Craig