| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-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...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-08-30 15:37:01 | Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc? |
| Previous Message | Jonathan Gardner | 2003-08-30 15:32:36 | ALTER TABLE ... TO ... to change related names |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rob Nagler | 2003-08-30 15:47:02 | Re: How to force Nested Loop plan? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-30 15:14:04 | Re: Selecting random rows efficiently |