Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> won't ever run into. Why such an incredibly limited virtual machine?
> Even my cell phone came with 256 meg built in two years ago.
Because I don't want to spend too much money on the machine rent, and a
48 MB RAM Xen is about all I can get with a budget of 100$ per year.
Well, there are a few providers which will give me a 128 MB Xen for that
money, but will the difference in performance be worth the hassle to
switch providers? My current provider gives me almost perfect
relaliability for that 100$ and I don't know how the providers which
give more RAM for the same money perform, maybe they are often down or
something. And spending more then 100$ yearly on this would be really
overkill. My thing runs fine, only a bit slow, but reasonable. I just
want to find out if I could maybe make it better with a little tweaking.
Can I expect it to work at least three times faster on 128 MB RAM?
Getting 256 MB would certainly cost too much. Or maybe there are some
providers which can give me much more performance PostgreSQL server with
at least several GB of storage for well... not more then 50$ per year.
(because I must still rent another server to run and SMTP server and few
other small stuff).
My DB has several tables with like 100000 to 1 million rows each,
running sorts, joins, updates etc on them several times per hour.
About 10000 inserts and selects each hour, the whole DB takes 1.5 GB on
disk now, 500 MB dumped.
If I could shorten the time it takes to run each query by a factor of 3
that's something worth going for.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Scott Marlowe||Date: 2008-07-23 20:43:25|
|Subject: Re: how to fix problem then when two queries run at the same time, it takes longer to complete then if run in sequence|
|Previous:||From: Scott Marlowe||Date: 2008-07-23 20:10:53|
|Subject: Re: Samsung 32GB SATA SSD tested|