On 02/10/2016 05:10 AM, ioan ghip wrote:
> I have a Firebird SQL database running on one of my servers which has
> about 50k inserts, about 100k updates and about 30k deletes every day.
> There are about 4 million records in 24 tables. I have a bunch of stored
> procedures, triggers, events and views that I'm using.
> Firebird works fairly well, but from time to time the database gets
> corrupted and I couldn't figure out yet (after many years of running)
> what's the reason. When this happens I run "gfix -mend -full -ignore",
> backup and restore the db and everything is fine until next problem in a
> week, or a month.
>
> I never used PostgreSQL. Yesterday I installed it on my development
> machine and after few tests I saw that it's fairly easy to use.
>
> Does anyone have experience with both, Firebird and PostgreSQL? Is
> PostgreSQL way better performing than Firebird? Is it worth the effort
> moving away from Firebird? Would I gain stability and increased performance?
Well, performance in PostgreSQL is largely dependant on your hardware.
The numbers you're talking about seem pretty small to me, though; I can
do 1000 inserts per *second* on a medium-sized AWS instance. So I don't
think performance will be your main concern.
I'm sorry to hear about your data corruption issues on Firebird. That's
dissapointing, especially since Firebird was one of the champion early
open source databases. Proof against database corruption is a major
part of PostgreSQL. I suggest turning on data checksums when you create
your database (this is not the default option) just in case the
corruption issue is actually your hardware.
PostgreSQL is a *server* database, though, so managing it is going to be
fairly different from Firebird, which is primarily a desktop database.
I suggest looking into pgAdmin4 to help with that.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)