-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 05/11/07 21:35, Dhaval Shah wrote:
> I do care about the following:
>
> 1. Basic type checking
> 2. Knowing failed inserts.
> 3. Non-corruption
> 4. Macro transactions. That is a minimal read consistency.
>
> The following is not necessary
>
> 1. Referential integrity
>
> In this particular scenario,
>
> 1. There is a sustained load and peak loads. As long as we can handle
> peak loads, the sustained loads can be half of the quoted figure.
> 2. The row size has limited columns. That is, it is spans at most a
> dozen or so columns and most integer or varchar.
>
> It is more data i/o heavy rather than cpu heavy.
Have you tested PG (and MySQL, for that matter) to determine what
kind of load they can handle on existing h/w?
Back to the original post: 100K inserts/second is 360 *million*
inserts per hour. That's a *lot*. Even if the steady-state is 50K
inserts/sec that's 180M inserts/hr. If each record is 120 bytes,
that's 43 gigabytes per hour. Which is 12MB/second. No problem
from a h/w standpoint.
However, it will fill a 300GB HDD in 7 hours.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGRZdhS9HxQb37XmcRAimAAJ9oi5AG0EcyATxeGDrlA1qdqU7krwCfc0k+
J7zMkiJiVKxS+DWM6I6Oujw=
=D04k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----