Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:28:09 -0800 From: ray@redshift.com To: Sven Willenberger <sven@dmv.com> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: amr performance woes and a bright side [UPDATE] Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20050323142809.00a7bdb0@pop.redshift.com> In-Reply-To: <1111616448.10576.34.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> References: <3.0.1.32.20050323140104.00a76cb8@pop.redshift.com> <1110895353.4291.16.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> <1110847561.3412.38.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> <1110895353.4291.16.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> <3.0.1.32.20050323140104.00a76cb8@pop.redshift.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
| We are using PostgreSQL for its stored procedures, stability, | SQL-compliance, and ability to handle 100G+ tables without flinching. It | has been only recently that mysql has even added subqueries much less | the higher functionality that we are seeking from a database; after | evaluation, PostgreSQL was the enterprise-grade solution that we were | seeking, and, with proper tweaking, does perform quite well. After one | too many experiences with corrupt mysql tables, workarounds to | implementing basic SQL compliant queries, and seeming lack of | functionality, the switch to PostgreSQL was almost a no-brainer. | Not trying to get into a db shootout as each system has its merits and | drawbacks; for what we needed, PostgreSQL provided the solution. Always good to hear from different perspectives :-) | I am running a modified kernel that adds plenty of memory for use by the | shared memory system PostgreSQL enjoys. 10/4 Ray
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.1.32.20050323142809.00a7bdb0>