| From: | Richard Broersma <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Polak <tom(at)rockfordarearealtors(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows |
| Date: | 2010-12-17 17:33:13 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=NtZKJMz+zjf4Aoga0yEWCiPyFr72VYiEaG2R8@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Tom Polak <tom(at)rockfordarearealtors(dot)org> wrote:
> Any comparisons in terms of performance would be great. If not, how can I
> quickly truly compare the two systems myself without coding everything to
> work for both? Thoughts? Opinions?
I can only offer anecdotal information.
If you strictly have an OLTP workload, with lots of simultaneous
connections issuing queries across small chunks of data, then
PostgreSQL would be a good match for SQL server.
On the other-hand, if some of your work load is OLAP with a few
connections issuing complicated queries across large chunks of data,
then PostgreSQL will not perform as well as SQL server. SQL server
can divide processing load of complicated queries across several
processor, while PostgreSQL cannot.
So, I guess it depends upon your workload.
--
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rob Wultsch | 2010-12-17 17:36:36 | Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows |
| Previous Message | Craig James | 2010-12-17 17:32:32 | Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows |