Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: how good is PostgreSQL

From: Tim Kientzle <kientzle(at)acm(dot)org>
To: Arnold Gamboa <arnold(at)php4us(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: how good is PostgreSQL
Date: 2000-11-01 00:20:04
Message-ID: 39FF61B4.5B27726D@acm.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
a) Don't log to a database.  Log data should be sent into a process
   that collects any needed on-the-fly statistics and then outputs
   into disk files (rotating hourly or daily depending on your needs).
   This model is becoming pretty standard with Apache now; look at
   rotatelog in the Apache distribution for an example.

b) Number of records isn't really the issue.  Query complexity and
   number of queries are more pertinent.  Generally, for example, a
   single SELECT that pulls in multiple rows is much faster than
   a bunch of small SELECTs.

c) For very high traffic, you are going to have multiple front-end
   servers.  If you design the system carefully, you can have a single
   shared network disk used by all of your front ends, then just stack
   boxes in front of it.  This doesn't give you endless scalability,
though;
   at some point you'll saturate your network file server and/or
database
   box.

d) PHP may not be a great choice.  It doesn't provide a lot of hooks
   for effective caching of database connections and/or results.
   mod_perl or Java servlets may be better, depending on the details.

				- Tim Kientzle

Arnold Gamboa wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> For users of large PostgreSQL and PostgreSQL builders, this is for you.
> 
> I'm having a terrible time deciding now. :(
> 
> We're about to build a "huge" website now.  I got tied up in signing the
> contract without really getting enough information about PgSQL since this
> what we plan to implement with PHP (normally we use mySQL but i guess it
> does not fit for huge databases like that).
> 
> Here's my problem.. We're about to build a site like hitbox.com where there
> is a large amount of database required.. If say there is 100,000 users with
> 1000 page hits per day for each, and everything will be logged, you could
> imagine how huge this will be.  I'm just so "nervous" (really, that's the
> term) if we implement this and later on experience a slow down or worse than
> that, crash in the server.
> 
> My questions are:
> 1. What is the limit for number of records in a table WITHOUT SUFFERING SLOW
> DOWN.
> 2. ....limit in number of tables per database
> 3. ... limit in number of database.
> 
> Thanks for you comments.  I would really appreciate every comment that I'll
> receive regarding this.
> 
> Arnold

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: KuroiNekoDate: 2000-11-01 00:26:44
Subject: Re: Query cache import?
Previous:From: Karel ZakDate: 2000-11-01 00:16:42
Subject: Re: Query cache import?

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Steve WolfeDate: 2000-11-01 00:39:54
Subject: Re: how good is PostgreSQL
Previous:From: Poul L. ChristiansenDate: 2000-10-31 23:44:57
Subject: Re: Query caching

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group