Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load
От | Ron Johnson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1062220877.669.406.camel@haggis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Selecting random rows efficiently
Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 21:44, Bruce Momjian wrote: > matt wrote: > > > Are you *sure* about that???? 3K updates/inserts per second xlates > > > to 10,800,000 per hour. That, my friend, is a WHOLE HECK OF A LOT! > > > > Yup, I know! > > Just a data point, but on my Dual Xeon 2.4Gig machine with a 10k SCSI > drive I can do 4k inserts/second if I turn fsync off. If you have a > battery-backed controller, you should be able to do the same. (You will > not need to turn fsync off --- fsync will just be fast because of the > disk drive RAM). > > Am I missing something? Is that FOR I BETWEEN 1 AND 4000 BEGIN INSERT COMMIT or BEGIN INSERT <snip 3998 inserts> INSERT COMMIT; or COPY I get the impression that Matt will need to do 25,000 of these per hour: SELECT <blah> IF <some circumstance that happens about 1/8th of the time> BEGIN INSERT or UPDATE COMMIT; He says his current h/w peaks at 1/10th that rate. My question is: is that current peak rate ("300 inserts/updates *or* 2500 selects") based upon 1 connection, or many connections? With 4 CPUs, and a 4 disk RAID10, I wouldn't be surprised if 4 con- current connections gives the optimum speed. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net Jefferson, LA USA Great Inventors of our time: Al Gore -> Internet Sun Microsystems -> Clusters
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: