Thread: Performance
Some time back I sent out a message asking if PGSQL would be able to handle my mailing list archive at http://www.geocrawler.com/ , and whether it would scale up to 100MB. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, PostgreSQL is handling 1.8GB in just one table, and its performance is amazing. I have archived 1,100,000 emails in the database and I don't really see much slowdown yet. I'm just stunned at how well this is working, and I keep pushing myself to find more and more mail archives to add to my database. It's fun! Check out the linux/freebsd/etc mail archives at geocrawler.com Tim
Tim Perdue wrote: > BELIEVE IT OR NOT, PostgreSQL is handling 1.8GB in just one table, and its > performance is amazing. I have archived 1,100,000 emails in the database and > I don't really see much slowdown yet. What is your hardware, os, etc? Thanks! Clark Evans
On Wed, Mar 10, 1999 at 02:29:45AM +0000, Clark Evans wrote: > Tim Perdue wrote: > > BELIEVE IT OR NOT, PostgreSQL is handling 1.8GB in just one table, and its > > performance is amazing. I have archived 1,100,000 emails in the database and > > I don't really see much slowdown yet. > > What is your hardware, os, etc? > > Thanks! > > Clark Evans I have had tables exceeding 10GB in one dataset, and the performance wa STILL excellent. Hardware was a Pentium Pro 200, FreeBSD, and a CMD RAID controller. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) http://www.mcs.net/~karl I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization.
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Tim Perdue wrote: > Some time back I sent out a message asking if PGSQL would be able to handle > my mailing list archive at http://www.geocrawler.com/ , and whether it would > scale up to 100MB. > > BELIEVE IT OR NOT, PostgreSQL is handling 1.8GB in just one table, and its > performance is amazing. I have archived 1,100,000 emails in the database and > I don't really see much slowdown yet. > > I'm just stunned at how well this is working, and I keep pushing myself to > find more and more mail archives to add to my database. > > It's fun! Check out the linux/freebsd/etc mail archives at geocrawler.com Yeah, I've got a database I'm still putting together, several tables of which have over 2 million rows. It's returning queries in under 30 seconds or so, in most cases. You just gotta make sure you have you indices set up properly. Brett W. McCoy http://www.lan2wan.com/~bmccoy/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Losing your drivers' license is just God's way of saying "BOOGA, BOOGA!" -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GAT dpu s:-- a C++++ UL++++$ P+ L+++ E W++ N+ o K- w--- O@ M@ !V PS+++ PE Y+ PGP- t++ 5- X+ R+@ tv b+++ DI+++ D+ G++ e>++ h+(---) r++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Thus spake Tim Perdue > Some time back I sent out a message asking if PGSQL would be able to handle > my mailing list archive at http://www.geocrawler.com/ , and whether it would > scale up to 100MB. Cool. We now have a searchable archive for PostgreSQL. However, I tried a search and it didn't seem to work. In pgsql-hackers I entered "niladic" (I tried "Niladic" just in case) and it failed to find any messages, even though I could see a few on the list of recent messages. Any ideas? -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 424 2871 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.