Re: [GENERAL] How to make a REALLY FAST db server?
""Steve Wolfe"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 002801c13a3f$15f34660$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:002801c13a3f$15f34660$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > (As an aside, one person was in a heated argument about how much cheaper > IDE was than SCSI. I got on pricewatch, found some prices, and would have > been able to put together a very fast SCSI system for the same price as > his IDE array.) That's nuts: SCSI disks cost a lot more than comparable IDE disks. Marshall ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] How to make a REALLY FAST db server?
"Shaun Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Steve Wolfe wrote: > > > So, why did I say that I don't use IDE for high-performance machines? > > IDE has limitations. > > Mainly, the fact that IDE controllers require far more CPU involvement > than any SCSI controller, especially on a saturated bus. A good SCSI > controller can stay below 2% under almost any circumstance. A bad IDE one > can go above 20%. I don't think I should have to say any more. ^_^ Your example is not very convincing. You want to compare a good SCSI controller with a bad IDE one? That's not what one would call equitable. Consider: let's get an antique 50 pin adaptec SCSI controller, and compare it to a 3ware escalade running RAID 0 over 4 drives. The IDE one is faster! It saturates the PCI bus! The SCSI controller pokes along at 10 MB/s. Doesn't prove anything. The business about CPU utilization did, in fact, use do be an issue, but hasn't been since the introduction of UltraDMA IDE controllers, which was a few years ago. (Admittedly, if you've been running WinNT 4 all this time, you haven't been able to take advantage of it.) Marshall ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] PL/java?
>> -Original Message- >> From: Dr. Evil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 7:38 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [GENERAL] PL/java? >> >> >> What do you think of having java as a procedural language available in >> PG? It seems like java has many advantages. >> >> I'm just wondering if people have thoughts or ideas on this, and if >> someone is actually working on it, that would be cool. >""Gowey, Geoffrey"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message E15F4B031E17D5118B18009027F67927DAC0@SERVER">news:E15F4B031E17D5118B18009027F67927DAC0@SERVER... > probably a bad idea. From what I've heard the speed of your java program is > wholely dependent on the speed of your vm (and most aren't that quick). > Although it would be nice to have just to say we have it and mysql doesn't > (then again mysql doesn't have a whole lot of things that pgsql already > has). > > Geoff This was a major issue in 1996. It's been solved for several years now, but the perception of Java having a speed problem remains. Java stored procedures are the #1 most-desired-by-me feature for PostgreSQL. Oracle and Sybase are examples of databases that have this feature already. (Strangely, Microsoft's database doesn't have it :-) Marshall Spight ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
