Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Cc: stange(at)rentec(dot)com, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Joshua Marsh <icub3d(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
Date: 2005-11-22 05:10:24
Message-ID: 4382A840.3030401@paradise.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Luke Lonergan wrote:

> So that leaves the question - why not more than 64% of the I/O scan rate?
> And why is it a flat 64% as the I/O subsystem increases in speed from
> 333-400MB/s?
>

It might be interesting to see what effect reducing the cpu consumption
entailed by the count aggregation has - by (say) writing a little bit
of code to heap scan the desired relation (sample attached).

Cheers

Mark

Attachment Content-Type Size
fastcount.c text/plain 978 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Qingqing Zhou 2005-11-22 07:21:12 Re: weird performances problem
Previous Message Luke Lonergan 2005-11-22 04:35:26 Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (