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

Re: Which hardware ?

From: "Lionel" <lionel(at)art-informatique(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Which hardware ?
Date: 2008-06-20 10:53:45
Message-ID: g3g27p$2md3$ (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
"Scott Marlowe" wrote:
> We had a reporting server with about 80G of data on a machine with 4G
> ram last place I worked, and it could take it a few extra seconds to
> hit the old data, but the SW RAID-10 on it made it much faster at
> reporting than it would have been with a single disk.

Would this be a nice choice ?

HP Proliant DL320 G5p  Xeon DC 3 GHz - 8 Go RAM DDR2 ECC
- 4 x 146 Go SAS 15k rpm   - RAID-10 HP Smart Array (128 Mo cache)

I finally choose to have 2 data tables:
- one with pre aggregated (dividing size by 10), unpartitionned (=the 
database they currently use)
- one with original data, yearly partitionned

I will choose before each statement which table will be used depending on 
which select/joins/where/groupby the user choosed.
The aggregated datas will allow me to maintain actual performances (and even 
improve it using the new hardware twice more powerfull).

I think lines aggregation will be handled by the java application (excel/csv 
file loaded in memory),
which will be much faster than using a trigger on insertion in the full 


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Howard ColeDate: 2008-06-20 13:10:49
Subject: Re: Tsearch2 Initial Search Speed
Previous:From: Daniele VarrazzoDate: 2008-06-19 14:03:38
Subject: Re: An "obvious" index not being used

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