Greg Smith wrote: > Greg Williamson wrote: > > Our tests -- very much oriented at postGIS found Oracle to be between 5 > > and 15% _faster_ depending on the specifics of the task. We decided to go > > with postgres given the price difference (several hundred thousand dollars > > for > > Oracle in the configuration we needed vs. zip for postgres -- we already had > > trained postgres DBAs). > > > > Can always throw the licensing savings toward larger hardware too; $100K > buys a pretty big server nowadays. At the FAA's talk about their > internal deployment of PostgreSQL: > https://www.postgresqlconference.org/2010/east/talks/faa_airports_gis_and_postgresql > > They were reporting that some of their difficult queries were > dramatically faster on PostgreSQL; I vaguely recall one of them was 100X > the speed it ran under Oracle Spatial. It was crazy. As always this > sort of thing is very workload dependent. There are certainly queries > (such as some of the ones from the TPC-H that big DB vendors optimize > for) that can be 100X faster on Oracle too.
The FAA reported something like that at PG East about Oracle vs. Postgres performance with GIS data. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
