Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

On 12/17/10 9:08 AM, Tom Polak wrote:
> So, I am back on this topic again.
> I have a related question, but this might be the correct thread (and
> please let me know that).  The boss is pressing the issue because of the
> cost of MSSQL.

You need to analyze the total cost of the system.  For the price of MSSQL and Windows, you can probably buy a couple
morereally nice servers, or one Really Big Server that would walk all over a Windows/MSSQL system of the same total
cost(hardware+software). 

But that said, if Postgres is properly tuned and your application tuned to make good use of Postgres' features, it will
comparewell with any modern database. 

> What kind of performance can I expect out of Postgres compare to MSSQL?
> Let's assume that Postgres is running on Cent OS x64 and MSSQL is running
> on Windows 2008 x64, both are on identical hardware running RAID 5 (for
> data redundancy/security), SAS drives 15k RPM, dual XEON Quad core CPUs,
> 24 GB of RAM.

RAID5 is a Really Bad Idea for any database.  It is S...L...O...W.  It does NOT give better redundancy and security;
RAID10 with a battery-backed RAID controller card is massively better for performance and just as good for redundancy
andsecurity. 

Craig