Re: Integrity on large sites

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Alexander Staubo <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net>, PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)killerbytes(dot)com>, Naz Gassiep <naz(at)mira(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Integrity on large sites
Date: 2007-05-24 05:20:58
Message-ID: 28454.1179984058@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> I'm not going to comment on who's fault it is, but the OP quoted 100
> updates and 600 selects per *second*. I can't imagine Flickr or Slashdot
> (which is heavily csched for reading) are under anything like that sort
> of constant load.

I'm pretty sure I remember reading that Slashdot had to put enormous
amounts of cacheing in front of their DB to keep it from falling over
on a regular basis.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Purusothaman A 2007-05-24 05:54:05 Re: [GENERAL] OIDs - file objects, are damaged by PostgreSQL.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-05-24 05:11:52 Re: Vacuum DB in Postgres Vs similar concept in other RDBMS