From: | Klaus Ita <klaus(at)worstofall(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Lello, Nick" <nick(dot)lello(at)rentrakmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Running PostgreSQL as fast as possible no matter the consequences |
Date: | 2010-11-08 15:58:13 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikJZipXKC23P6Bzz_2NQ0ySmwRBF3vYYMW_XX9U@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Use a replicated setup?
On Nov 8, 2010 4:21 PM, "Lello, Nick" <nick(dot)lello(at)rentrakmail(dot)com> wrote:
How about either:-
a) Size the pool so all your data fits into it.
b) Use a RAM-based filesystem (ie: a memory disk or SSD) for the
data storage [memory disk will be faster] with a Smaller pool
- Your seed data should be a copy of the datastore on disk filesystem;
at startup time copy the storage files from the physical to memory.
A bigger gain can probably be had if you have a tightly controlled
suite of queries that will be run against the database and you can
spend the time to tune each to ensure it performs no sequential scans
(ie: Every query uses index lookups).
On 5 November 2010 11:32, A B <gentosaker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> If you just wanted PostgreSQL to g...
--
Nick Lello | Web Architect
o +1 503.284.7581 x418 / +44 (0) 8433309374 | m +44 (0) 7917 138319
Email: nick.lello at rentrak.com
RENTRAK | www.rentrak.com | NASDAQ: RENT
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
To make changes to y...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-11-08 17:01:46 | Re: Select * is very slow |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-11-08 15:57:14 | Re: Running PostgreSQL as fast as possible no matter the consequences |