Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS
- From: "Harpreet Dhaliwal" <harpreet(dot)dhaliwal01(at)gmail(dot)com>
- To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- Cc: "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Erik Jones" <erik(at)myemma(dot)com>, "Chris Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS
- Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 13:31:06 -0400
- Message-id: <d86a77ef0705261031l7c6c55d2w33ab5a1a181f5cff(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
is the host base configuration methodology in postgres superior to other RDBMS.
is this something novel that postgres has come up with?
~Harpreet
On 5/26/07,
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:Stefan Kaltenbrunner <
stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> A more interesting question is what sort of hardware you need for that
>> actually to be a win, though. Loading a few tables in parallel sounds
>> like an ideal recipe for oversaturating your disk bandwidth...
> you don't actually need that much of disk bandwidth both COPY and CREATE
> INDEX are CPU bottlenecked on modern boxes and reasonable disk
> subsystems - spreading their work over multiple cores/processes can give
> big benefits.
Hmm ... I wonder if that's true for COPY BINARY ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index