On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 01:33:54PM +0200, vincent wrote:
> > One of my databases has about 70M rows inserted, 30M rows updated,
> > 70M rows deleted, and 3G rows retrieved per day. At peak times of
> > the day it sustains around 120K rows/minute inserted, 80K rows/minute
> > updated or deleted, an
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, snacktime wrote:
It's a web app that will be using ruby on rails. The challenge I'm
running into is that the latest conventional wisdom seems to be that
since obviously databases don't scale on the web, you should just not
use them at all.
Those who don't use a DBMS to
On Oct 22, 2007, at 5:44 AM, Gregory Stark wrote:
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas Kellerer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Where else do they want to store relational data than in a RDBMS?
Indeed. It seems like we can hardly answer the OP's question without
asking "compared to w
In response to Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Thomas Kellerer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Where else do they want to store relational data than in a RDBMS?
> >
> > Indeed. It seems like we can hardly answer the OP's question without
> > ask
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 11:11:32PM -0700, snacktime wrote:
>> So what would really help me is some real world numbers on how
>> postgresql is doing in the wild under pressure. If anyone cares to
>> throw some out I would really appreciate it.
>
> One of my databases has about 70M rows inserted,
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 11:11:32PM -0700, snacktime wrote:
> So what would really help me is some real world numbers on how
> postgresql is doing in the wild under pressure. If anyone cares to
> throw some out I would really appreciate it.
One of my databases has about 70M rows inserted, 30M rows
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Kellerer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Where else do they want to store relational data than in a RDBMS?
>
> Indeed. It seems like we can hardly answer the OP's question without
> asking "compared to what?" If they're afraid an RDBMS won't scale,
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 01:23 -0400, Guy Rouillier wrote:
> Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-10-21 at 22:54 -0400, Guy Rouillier wrote:
> >> The current app uses stored procedures
> >> for all inserts, and PG didn't do well with that approach; substituting
> >> embedded inserts fixed that prob
Ow Mun Heng wrote:
On Sun, 2007-10-21 at 22:54 -0400, Guy Rouillier wrote:
The current app uses stored procedures
for all inserts, and PG didn't do well with that approach; substituting
embedded inserts fixed that problem. So PG can definitely "handle" very
Can you explain what is embedde
> As far as real world numbers, we have a data-intensive app
> (network data
> collection for a telecom company) that is currently inserting
> about 16
> million rows a day. I benchmarked PG for that app and with some
> tweaking, PG could handle it.
Me too, not telco though. 5.5 million per d
Dave Cramer wrote:
snacktime wrote:
I'm working through the architecture design for a new product. We
have a small group working on this. It's a web app that will be using
ruby on rails. The challenge I'm running into is that the latest
conventional wisdom seems to be that since obviously dat
On Sun, 2007-10-21 at 22:54 -0400, Guy Rouillier wrote:
> The current app uses stored procedures
> for all inserts, and PG didn't do well with that approach; substituting
> embedded inserts fixed that problem. So PG can definitely "handle" very
Can you explain what is embedded inserts?
--
Dave Cramer wrote:
snacktime wrote:
I'm working through the architecture design for a new product. We
have a small group working on this. It's a web app that will be using
ruby on rails. The challenge I'm running into is that the latest
conventional wisdom seems to be that since obviously dat
Thomas Kellerer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Where else do they want to store relational data than in a RDBMS?
Indeed. It seems like we can hardly answer the OP's question without
asking "compared to what?" If they're afraid an RDBMS won't scale,
what have they got in mind that they are so cert
snacktime wrote on 21.10.2007 08:11:
I have a group
of otherwise very bright people trying to convince me that a rdbms is
not a good place to store relational data
Hmm.
Those bright people say that a /relational/ database management system is not a
good place to store /relational/ data?
I
snacktime wrote:
I'm working through the architecture design for a new product. We
have a small group working on this. It's a web app that will be using
ruby on rails. The challenge I'm running into is that the latest
conventional wisdom seems to be that since obviously databases don't
scale o
snacktime wrote:
I'm working through the architecture design for a new product. We
have a small group working on this. It's a web app that will be using
ruby on rails. The challenge I'm running into is that the latest
conventional wisdom seems to be that since obviously databases don't
scale o
I'll agree with Bill's response... If they dont want a rdbms what do
they want? If they know of something that scales better and is faster,
I'll bet they can make a lot of money. Lot of high traffic sites would
love to hear what they think.
> conventional wisdom seems to be that since obvi
snacktime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm working through the architecture design for a new product. We
> have a small group working on this. It's a web app that will be using
> ruby on rails. The challenge I'm running into is that the latest
> conventional wisdom seems to be that since obvio
I'm working through the architecture design for a new product. We
have a small group working on this. It's a web app that will be using
ruby on rails. The challenge I'm running into is that the latest
conventional wisdom seems to be that since obviously databases don't
scale on the web, you shou
20 matches
Mail list logo
