Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PostgreSQL survey

From: "Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA)" <bnicholson(at)hp(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "cesarmk(at)gmail(dot)com"<cesarmk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org"<pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL survey
Date: 2011-12-13 15:57:25
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-advocacy-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-
> owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Kevin Grittner
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:43 PM
> To: cesarmk(at)gmail(dot)com; pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] PostgreSQL survey
> > 2. How big are the servers you are running PostgreSQL, Is there
> > anyone using more than 32 cores or 256GB memory ?
> Our biggest server, which has just gone into production, is 32 cores
> with 256GB RAM.  We are able to comfortably support several TB of
> databases running tens of millions of database transactions per day
> on servers with 16 cores and 128GB RAM.  In benchmarking the latest
> development code, containing features targeted for next year's
> performance-oriented release, I was seeing over 500,000 tps for a
> read-only transaction load and over 30,000 tps for a mixed load
> including a lot of updates.  They are not done adding performance
> features for the next release, though.  :-)

Sorry to derail the thread - but 500k tps on read and 30k tps on mixed workload of a single server - wow...  Do you have a comparison for the workload against 9.1?  I'm curious about the factor of improvement.


In response to


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Nikolas EverettDate: 2011-12-13 16:23:55
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL survey
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-12-12 20:42:51
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL survey

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group