Re: multi billion row tables: possible or insane? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From John Arbash Meinel
Subject Re: multi billion row tables: possible or insane?
Date
Msg-id 42248FAC.2010103@arbash-meinel.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: multi billion row tables: possible or insane?  ("Vig, Sandor (G/FI-2)" <Sandor.Vig@audi.hu>)
List pgsql-performance
Vig, Sandor (G/FI-2) wrote:

>385 transaction/sec?
>
>fsync = false
>
>risky but fast.
>
>

I think with a dedicated RAID10 for pg_xlog (or possibly a battery
backed up ramdisk), and then a good amount of disks in a bulk RAID10 or
possibly a good partitioning of the db across multiple raids, you could
probably get a good enough tps.

But you're right, fsync=false could certainly give you the performance,
though a power outage means potential *real* corruption. Not just
missing transactions, but duplicated rows, all sorts of ugliness.

John
=:->


Attachment

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Vig, Sandor (G/FI-2)"
Date:
Subject: Re: multi billion row tables: possible or insane?
Next
From: Andras Kadinger
Date:
Subject: Re: multi billion row tables: possible or insane?