Richard Huxton wrote:
>On Thursday 15 April 2004 08:10, Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
>
>
>>The problem is that i want to know if i need a Hardware upgrade
>>at the moment.
>>
>>Eg i have another table rfis which contains ~ .6 million records.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>SELECT count(*) from rfis where sender_uid > 0;
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Time: 117560.635 ms
>>
>>Which is approximate 4804 records per second. Is it an acceptable
>>performance on the hardware below:
>>
>>RAM: 2 GB
>>DISKS: ultra160 , 10 K , 18 GB
>>Processor: 2* 2.0 Ghz Xeon
>>
>>
>
>Hmm - doesn't seem good, does it? If you run it again, is it much faster
>(since the data should be cached then)? What does "vmstat 10" show while
>you're running the query?
>
>One thing you should have done is read the performance tuning guide at:
> http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/index.php
>The default values are very conservative, and you will need to change them.
>
>
Hi,
Thanks for the interest . my config are not the default ones.
i was running iostat while running the query. Looks like one
of the disks doesnt' go past a read performance of 20 ,000 KBytes/sec
while the other disk it goes as high as 40,000 . What i am ding
currently is
loading the table in both the disks and compare the table scan speeds.
The performance is definitely better in the newly loaded table in the other
disk . the load in server is 13 because i am simultaneously re-loading
the data
in other table.
rt2=# SELECT count(*) from rfis where sender_uid > 0;
+--------+
| count |
+--------+
| 564870 |
+--------+
(1 row)
Time: 10288.359 ms
rt2=#
shall post the comparitive details under normal load soon
regds
mallah.
>
>
>>What kind of upgrades shoud be put on the server for it to become
>>reasonable fast.
>>
>>
>
>If you've only got one disk, then a second disk for OS/logging. Difficult to
>say more without knowing numbers of users/activity etc.
>
>
>