| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Tuning for mid-size server |
| Date: | 2003-10-21 21:32:16 |
| Message-ID: | 200310211432.16551.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Scott,
> I think where it makes sense is when you have something like a report
> server where the result sets may be huge, but the parellel load is load,
> i.e. 5 or 10 users tossing around 100 Meg or more at time.
I've found that that question makes the difference between using 6% & 12% ...
particularly large data transformations ... but not higher than that. And
I've had ample opportunity to test on 2 reporting servers. For one thing,
with very large reports one tends to have a lot of I/O binding, which is
handled by the kernel.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2003-10-21 21:34:08 | Re: Tuning for mid-size server |
| Previous Message | Will LaShell | 2003-10-21 21:27:56 | Re: RAID controllers etc... was: PostgreSQL data on a NAS device ? |