| From: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8(at)verizon(dot)net>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing |
| Date: | 2008-12-09 22:05:18 |
| Message-ID: | C5642B9E.F8A%scott@richrelevance.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Which brings this back around to the point I care the most about:
I/O per second will diminish as the most common database performance limiting factor in Postgres 8.4's lifetime, and become almost irrelevant in 8.5's.
Becoming more CPU efficient will become very important, and for some, already is. The community needs to be proactive on this front.
This turns a lot of old assumptions on their head, from the database down through the OS and filesystem. We're bound to run into many surprises due to this major shift in something that has had its performance characteristics taken for granted for decades.
> On 12/9/08 12:20 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> > So, at least in relative terms, 15k sas drives are not 'fast'. They
> > are terribly, awfully, painfully slow. They are also not cheap in
> > terms of $/IOPS. The end is near.
> >
> No doubt about it. I give it 24 months tops.
>
> Joshua D. Drake
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-09 22:38:35 | Re: Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-12-09 20:20:42 | Re: Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing |