| From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | A B <gentosaker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Szymon Guz <mabewlun(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Running PostgreSQL as fast as possible no matter the consequences |
| Date: | 2010-11-05 11:41:33 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikn_rY0wrasvNz23Mmuw6g5FDkruvomJeZwqVEU@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 5 November 2010 11:36, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 13:32, A B <gentosaker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I was just thinking about the case where I will have almost 100%
> > selects, but still needs something better than a plain key-value
> > storage so I can do some sql queries.
> > The server will just boot, load data, run, hopefully not crash but if
> > it would, just start over with load and run.
>
> If you want fast read queries then changing
> fsync/full_page_writes/synchronous_commit won't help you.
Yes, those will be for write-performance only, so useless in this case.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Cottenceau | 2010-11-05 12:06:25 | Re: Running PostgreSQL as fast as possible no matter the consequences |
| Previous Message | Marti Raudsepp | 2010-11-05 11:36:34 | Re: Running PostgreSQL as fast as possible no matter the consequences |