| From: | Pedro Axelrud <pedroaxl(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: which hardware setup |
| Date: | 2010-05-25 17:07:46 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinr32Nl50BBAVd8NlYU7tzQoMQfUWBtwHhSDeYj@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Sorry Jesper, I thought I had mentioned.. our dataset have 18GB.
Pedro Axelrud
http://mailee.me
http://softa.com.br
http://flavors.me/pedroaxl
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 03:21, Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc> wrote:
> Option 2:
>> App Server and Postgres: Dual Xeon 5520 quad core with 12GB ram and 2x
>> 146GB 15k RPM SAS (RAID1) disks
>>
>>
> you didnt mention your dataset size, but i the second option would be
> preferrable in most situations since it gives more of the os memory for disc
> caching. 12 gb vs 4 gb for the host running pg
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Carey | 2010-05-25 18:27:08 | Re: prepared query performs much worse than regular query |
| Previous Message | Jorge Montero | 2010-05-25 16:18:11 | Re: Query timing increased from 3s to 55s when used as a function instead of select |