Re: [PERFORM] Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

2010-12-17 Thread Tom Polak
y peak at about 30-50 requests per second) in the system at one time doing various tasks. The servers would be running on a RAID hardware solution, so it would all be offloaded from the CPU. I will have to check out RAID 10 for the next server. Thanks for all your help and opinions. Thanks, Tom

Re: [PERFORM] Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

2010-12-17 Thread Tom Polak
mpare the two systems myself without coding everything to work for both? Thoughts? Opinions? Thanks, Tom Polak Rockford Area Association of Realtors 815-395-6776 x203 The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of

Re: [PERFORM] Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

2010-12-07 Thread Tom Polak
n pgtemp1 (cost=0.00..122.01 rows=1001 width=788) (actual time=0.010..0.764 rows=1001 loops=1)" " -> Materialize (cost=0.00..1.01 rows=1 width=510) (actual time=0.000..0.001 rows=1 loops=1001)" "-> Seq Scan on pgtemp2 (cost=0.00..1.01 rows=1 width=510) (actual ti

[PERFORM] Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

2010-12-07 Thread Tom Polak
trying to understand what is going on here so please don’t flame me. Any advice is appreciated. *Thanks, Tom Polak Rockford Area Association of Realtors ** The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this email