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

Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load

From: "Matt Clark" <matt(at)ymogen(dot)net>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Ron Johnson" <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>,"PgSQL Performance ML" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load
Date: 2003-08-30 15:36:20
Message-ID: OAEAKHEHCMLBLIDGAFELIEHIDHAA.matt@ymogen.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
> Just a data point, but on my Dual Xeon 2.4Gig machine with a 10k SCSI
> drive I can do 4k inserts/second if I turn fsync off.  If you have a
> battery-backed controller, you should be able to do the same.  (You will
> not need to turn fsync off --- fsync will just be fast because of the
> disk drive RAM).
>
> Am I missing something?

I think Ron asked this, but I will too, is that 4k inserts in one transaction or 4k transactions each with one insert?

fsync is very much faster (as are all random writes) with the write-back cache, but I'd hazard a guess that it's still not nearly as
fast as turning fsync off altogether.  I'll do a test perhaps...




In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Rob NaglerDate: 2003-08-30 15:47:02
Subject: Re: How to force Nested Loop plan?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-08-30 15:14:04
Subject: Re: Selecting random rows efficiently

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2003-08-30 15:37:01
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc?
Previous:From: Jonathan GardnerDate: 2003-08-30 15:32:36
Subject: ALTER TABLE ... TO ... to change related names

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