"Scott Marlowe" wrote:
> We had a reporting server with about 80G of data on a machine with 4G
> ram last place I worked, and it could take it a few extra seconds to
> hit the old data, but the SW RAID-10 on it made it much faster at
> reporting than it would have been with a single disk.
Would this be a nice choice ?
HP Proliant DL320 G5p Xeon DC 3 GHz - 8 Go RAM DDR2 ECC
- 4 x 146 Go SAS 15k rpm - RAID-10 HP Smart Array (128 Mo cache)
I finally choose to have 2 data tables:
- one with pre aggregated (dividing size by 10), unpartitionned (=the
database they currently use)
- one with original data, yearly partitionned
I will choose before each statement which table will be used depending on
which select/joins/where/groupby the user choosed.
The aggregated datas will allow me to maintain actual performances (and even
improve it using the new hardware twice more powerfull).
I think lines aggregation will be handled by the java application (excel/csv
file loaded in memory),
which will be much faster than using a trigger on insertion in the full
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Howard Cole||Date: 2008-06-20 13:10:49|
|Subject: Re: Tsearch2 Initial Search Speed|
|Previous:||From: Daniele Varrazzo||Date: 2008-06-19 14:03:38|
|Subject: Re: An "obvious" index not being used|