Re: Fast Inserts and Hardware Questions - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | adb |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Fast Inserts and Hardware Questions |
Date | |
Msg-id | Pine.GSO.4.10.10103141604170.2561-100000@hairdini.beast.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Fast Inserts and Hardware Questions (Orion Henry <orion@trustcommerce.com>) |
List | pgsql-general |
Have you done any benchmarks with a prototype of your application. Based off of some of the numbers I've been seeing with my testing, I would not be surprised if a single pIII 1ghz box with a decent disk (ata 100 or scsi 160) would handle the load you describe and is way cheaper than some big smp box. A dual pIII with a decent raid card would get you even farther. Certainly these are not as expandable as other options out there but they are worth a look. What I would be most concered about is a table that grows by a few million rows a week, that to me seems like a liability in itself since maintenance on that table will get pretty slow after a few months. Alex. On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Orion Henry wrote: > I am specing out a database for my company and I need some advice. The > database in mind will consist of one table, with about 300 bytes per > record. The table will be getting two or three million inserts a week > and it would be nice if it could handle a sustained 30 to 50 a second. > The table will have (ACK!) 4 indexes (if anyone can explain to me how I > can get away with less please let me know) > > The indexes will be > int8 (primary key) > int4 (group number) > timestamp (creation date) > int4 (customer id) > > The customers want to be able to query their data whenever and have it > be snappy. > > So here is my question: > * Is there an OS that is best suited for postgres. All things being > equal I would like to run this on Linux. > * Is there an architecture best suited for this. Should I shell out the > extra cash for a 64 bit box over a 32bit one. Quad Xeon or Quad Alpha? > Quad Alpha or Quad UltraSparc? > * Since most of what I am doing is inserts I will assume that the disk > will be my bottleneck over anything else. Is this correct? > * Will the 7.1 WAL save me, when it comes to insert times? > * I read something about disabling fsync() to speed up inserts. How > much will this speed things up? I would consider it as I COULD rebuild > lost data from my logs in the event of a system crash and one night a > year of panic on my part is worth saving $100,000 in drive arrays. > > Oh, and if any of you SQL guru's are still reading I'll show you the > queries I will be running to see if I can really ditch an index. > > select * from table where customer_id = ? and primary_key = ?::int8 > select * from table where customer_id = ? and group_number = ? > select * from table where customer_id = ? and creation > ? and creation > < ? > > Thanks for all your help, > > Orion Henry > CTO TrustCommerce > orion@trustcommerce.com > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) >
pgsql-general by date: