Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Scott Marlowe
Subject Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics
Date
Msg-id dcc563d11003021321u64a90ef7ybaf9113fd3ec1c28@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics  (david@lang.hm)
Responses Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics  (Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:14 PM,  <david@lang.hm> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Francisco Reyes wrote:
>
>> Anyone has any experience doing analytics with postgres. In particular if
>> 10K rpm drives are good enough vs using 15K rpm, over 24 drives. Price
>> difference is $3,000.
>>
>> Rarely ever have more than 2 or 3 connections to the machine.
>>
>> So far from what I have seen throughput is more important than TPS for the
>> queries we do. Usually we end up doing sequential scans to do
>> summaries/aggregates.
>
> With sequential scans you may be better off with the large SATA drives as
> they fit more data per track and so give great sequential read rates.

True, I just looked at the Hitachi 7200 RPM 2TB Ultrastar and it lists
and average throughput of 134 Megabytes/second which is quite good.
While seek time is about double that of a 15krpm drive, short stroking
can lower that quite a bit.  Latency is still 2x as much, but there's
not much to do about that.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: david@lang.hm
Date:
Subject: Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics
Next
From: Francisco Reyes
Date:
Subject: Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics