From: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Diogo Biazus" <diogo(at)ikono(dot)com(dot)br>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Wich hardware suits best for large full-text indexed databases |
Date: | 2004-03-30 22:12:00 |
Message-ID: | D90A5A6C612A39408103E6ECDD77B8299CA979@voyager.corporate.connx.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diogo Biazus [mailto:diogo(at)ikono(dot)com(dot)br]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 1:55 PM
> To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: [GENERAL] Wich hardware suits best for large
> full-text indexed databases
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I have a database using tsearch2 to index 300 000 documents.
> I've already have optimized the queries, and the database is
> vacuumed on
> a daily basis.
> The stat function tells me that my index has aprox. 460 000
> unique words
> (I'm using stemmer and a nice stopword list).
> The problem is performance, some queries take more than 10 seconds to
> execute, and I'm not sure if my bottleneck is memory or io.
> The server is a Athlon XP 2000, HD ATA133, 1.5 GB RAM running
> postgresql
> 7.4.3 over freebsd 5.0 with lots of shared buffers and sort_mem...
>
> Does anyone has an idea of a more cost eficient solution?
> How to get a better performance without having to invest some
> astronomicaly high amount of money?
What does the EXPLAIN command say about the slowest queries?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Diogo Biazus | 2004-03-30 22:31:36 | Re: Wich hardware suits best for large full-text indexed |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-30 21:58:26 | Re: Some Documentation Changes |