> Are you *sure* about that???? 3K updates/inserts per second xlates
> to 10,800,000 per hour. That, my friend, is a WHOLE HECK OF A LOT!
Yup, I know!
> During the 1 hour surge, will SELECTs at 10 minutes after the
> hour depend on INSERTs at 5 minutes after the hour?
Yes, they do. It's a payments system, so things like account balances
and purchase histories have to be updated in real time.
> Only one hour out of 168????? May I ask what kind of app it is?
Online voting for an unnamed TV show...
> > If the best price/performance option is a second hand 32-cpu Alpha
> > running VMS I'd be happy to go that way ;-)
> I'd love to work on a GS320! You may even pick one up for a million
> or 2. The license costs for VMS & Rdb would eat you, though.
You'd be amazed how little they do go for actually :-)
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Ron Johnson||Date: 2003-08-28 09:02:36|
|Subject: Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load|
|Previous:||From: Dennis Björklund||Date: 2003-08-28 08:11:02|
|Subject: Re: The results of my PostgreSQL/filesystem performance|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jeroen T. Vermeulen||Date: 2003-08-28 08:19:57|
|Subject: Re: 2-phase commit|
|Previous:||From: Shridhar Daithankar||Date: 2003-08-28 07:07:53|
|Subject: Re: Replication Ideas |