Обсуждение: Does PostgreSQL run with Oracle?
My basic question to the community is "is PostgreSQL approximately as fast as Oracle?" I don't want benchmarks, they're BS. I want a gut feel from this community because I know many of you are in mixed shops that run both products, or have had experience with both. I fully intend to tune, vacuum, analyze, size buffers, etc. I've read what people have written on the topic, and from that my gut feel is that using PostgreSQL will not adversely affect performance of my application versus Oracle. I know it won't adversely affect my pocket book. I also know that requests for help will be quick, clear, and multifaceted. I'm currently running single processor UltraSPARC workstations, and intend to use Intel Arch laptops and Linux. The application is a big turnkey workstation app. I know the hardware switch alone will enhance performance, and may do so to the point where even a slower database will still be adequate. Whadyall think? Thanks, Rick
Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com wrote: > My basic question to the community is "is PostgreSQL approximately as fast > as Oracle?" > > I don't want benchmarks, they're BS. I want a gut feel from this community > because I know many of you are in mixed shops that run both products, or > have had experience with both. > > I fully intend to tune, vacuum, analyze, size buffers, etc. I've read what > people have written on the topic, and from that my gut feel is that using > PostgreSQL will not adversely affect performance of my application versus > Oracle. I know it won't adversely affect my pocket book. I also know that > requests for help will be quick, clear, and multifaceted. > > I'm currently running single processor UltraSPARC workstations, and intend > to use Intel Arch laptops and Linux. The application is a big turnkey > workstation app. I know the hardware switch alone will enhance > performance, and may do so to the point where even a slower database will > still be adequate. I have always been told we are +/- 10% of Oracle. That's what I say at talks and no one has disputed that. We are +10-30% faster than Informix. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 11:54:44AM -0500, Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com wrote: > My basic question to the community is "is PostgreSQL approximately as fast > as Oracle?" > I'm currently running single processor UltraSPARC workstations, and intend > to use Intel Arch laptops and Linux. The application is a big turnkey > workstation app. I know the hardware switch alone will enhance > performance, and may do so to the point where even a slower database will > still be adequate. I have found that PostgreSQL seems to perform poorly on Solaris/SPARC (less so after recent improvements, but still...) compared to x86 systems - more so than the delta between Oracle on the two platforms. Just a gut impression, but it might mean that comparing the two databases on SPARC may not be that useful comparison if you're planning to move to x86. Cheers, Steve
Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com writes:
> My basic question to the community is "is PostgreSQL approximately as fast
> as Oracle?"
The anecdotal evidence I've seen leaves me with the impression that when
you first take an Oracle-based app and drop it into Postgres, it won't
perform particularly well, but with tuning and tweaking you can roughly
equal and often exceed the original performance. The two DBs are enough
unalike that a database schema that's been tuned for Oracle is probably
mistuned for Postgres. You will certainly find "some things are faster,
some are slower" at the end of the day, but we've had lots of satisfied
switchers ...
regards, tom lane
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:54:44 -0500, richard_d_levine@raytheon.com <richard_d_levine@raytheon.com> wrote: > My basic question to the community is "is PostgreSQL approximately as fast > as Oracle?" > > I don't want benchmarks, they're BS. I want a gut feel from this community > because I know many of you are in mixed shops that run both products, or > have had experience with both. That all depends on exactly what your application needs to do. There are many more features that Oracle has and postgres doesn't than vice versa. If you need to do something with your data that isn't possible to do as efficiently without one of those features, then yes postgresql can be much slower. If you don't need any such features, it can be ballpark, until you start getting into fairly hefty hardware.
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:54:44 -0500, richard_d_levine@raytheon.com <richard_d_levine@raytheon.com> wrote: > My basic question to the community is "is PostgreSQL approximately as fast > as Oracle?" My personal experience comparing PG to Oracle is across platforms, Oracle on Sun/Solaris (2.7, quad-proc R440) and PG on Intel/Linux (2.6 kernel, dual P3/1GHz). When both were tuned for the specific app I saw a 45% speedup after switching to PG. This was with a customized CRM and System Monitoring application serving ~40,000 trouble tickets and monitoring 5,000 metric datapoints every 5-30 minutes. The hardware was definitely not comparable (the Intel boxes have more horsepower and faster disks), but dollar for dollar, including support costs, PG is the winner by a BIG margin. YMMV, of course, and my results are apparently above average. Another big plus I found was that PG is much easier to admin as long as you turn on pg_autovacuum. --miker
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > My basic question to the community is "is PostgreSQL approximately > as fast as Oracle?" > > I don't want benchmarks, they're BS. I want a gut feel from this community > because I know many of you are in mixed shops that run both products, or > have had experience with both. My gut feeling is not just "as fast", but "often times faster." I've found very few cases in which Oracle was faster, and that was usually due to some easily spotted difference such as tablespace support. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200410191925 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFBdaK0vJuQZxSWSsgRApPRAKDTjM+QybR2HnB1UNOao1RY7YDU9ACcDhnr zvH1gwn35Ah8mixo2XHOFr4= =NNZf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 10:19:48AM -0700, Steve Atkins wrote: > On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 11:54:44AM -0500, Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com wrote: > > My basic question to the community is "is PostgreSQL approximately as fast > > as Oracle?" > > > I'm currently running single processor UltraSPARC workstations, and intend > > to use Intel Arch laptops and Linux. The application is a big turnkey > > workstation app. I know the hardware switch alone will enhance > > performance, and may do so to the point where even a slower database will > > still be adequate. > > I have found that PostgreSQL seems to perform poorly on Solaris/SPARC > (less so after recent improvements, but still...) compared to x86 > systems - more so than the delta between Oracle on the two platforms. > Just a gut impression, but it might mean that comparing the two > databases on SPARC may not be that useful comparison if you're > planning to move to x86. As a point of reference, an IBM hardware sales rep I worked with a few years ago told me that he got a lot of sales from Oracle shops that were running Sun and switched to RS/6000. Basically, for a given workload, it would take 2x the number of Sun CPUs as RS/6000 CPUs. The difference in Oracle licensing costs was usually enough to pay for the new hardware in one year. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@decibel.org Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"