Обсуждение: store different tables in different locations
Hi, all
I have several questions to bother you. :)
1 For postgresql, is it POSSIBLE to store different tables in different
locations where we specify? For one postgresql management process,
is it POSSIBLE to store different database in differentlocations
where we specify?
2 Is it appropriate to use Postgresql to store data for the following
situation:
The whole system consists of about 400 machines and I have to
develop a program collecting the information about capacity and
performance and networt setting and so on of each machines
and displaying them for the administrators and some related
guys. Moreover, I have to store some history data to display graphes
and curvers. My design is as follows: one daemon process running
on each machine to collect data and send it to the database which
is in one specified machine.
The bad thing is that the size of database is asked to be resricted
in 900MB for some reasons.
The questions are:
(a) Is it appropriate to use postgresql database in this case?
If not, any sugguestion will be appreciated.
In fact considered using common file to store data. but you know,
it is possible that daemon processes on other 399 machines send data
simultaneously, ...
(b) It seems hard to estimate the maximum size of the database,
because frequently updating and inserting opreations will cause unused
space not acclaiming in time and we have to routinely vaccum.
Is there any good and easy, :) way to estimate the maximum size of
postgresql database accurately?
Best regards,
Duan
--
Duan Ligong
TEL : 0561-75-1925-6201
800-81-569-6201
E-Mail : l-duan@zd.cnes.jp.nec.com
Hello, 1) To store tables in different locations use different tablespaces, witch can be stored in different locations in your hard drive. Same goes for the databases. 2) a) Postgresql is fine data base management system, so I see no reasons why you should not use it. b) I'm not sure I fully understand you on that one. You want to estimate, that after inserting some record into your database it will reach your maximum size? Any way I don't know how to do this... Duan Ligong rašė: > Hi, all > > I have several questions to bother you. :) > > 1 For postgresql, is it POSSIBLE to store different tables in > different locations where we specify? For one postgresql management > process, > is it POSSIBLE to store different database in differentlocations > where we specify? > > 2 Is it appropriate to use Postgresql to store data for the following > situation: > The whole system consists of about 400 machines and I have to develop > a program collecting the information about capacity and performance > and networt setting and so on of each machines and displaying them for > the administrators and some related guys. Moreover, I have to store > some history data to display graphes > and curvers. My design is as follows: one daemon process running on > each machine to collect data and send it to the database which is in > one specified machine. > The bad thing is that the size of database is asked to be resricted in > 900MB for some reasons. > The questions are: > (a) Is it appropriate to use postgresql database in this case? If not, > any sugguestion will be appreciated. > In fact considered using common file to store data. but you know, > it is possible that daemon processes on other 399 machines send data > simultaneously, ... > > (b) It seems hard to estimate the maximum size of the database, > because frequently updating and inserting opreations will cause unused > space not acclaiming in time and we have to routinely vaccum. > Is there any good and easy, :) way to estimate the maximum size of > postgresql database accurately? > > Best regards, > Duan > > > -- > Duan Ligong > TEL : 0561-75-1925-6201 > 800-81-569-6201 > E-Mail : l-duan@zd.cnes.jp.nec.com > -- Julius Tuskenis Programuotojas UAB nSoft mob. +37068233050
Julius Tuskenis wrote: > Hello, > 1) To store tables in different locations use different tablespaces, witch > can be stored in different locations in your hard drive. Same goes for the > databases. Thanks a lot and it would be helpful. :) I am a newbie to postgresql and maybe I should read the manuual first. > 2) > a) Postgresql is fine data base management system, so I see no reasons why > you should not use it. we use postgresql to store so little data as only 600MB or so, while for this, we have to do consume some efforts on managing and maintaining the database. I am not sure whether it is a good and wise design. Is there any more wiser design for this case? > b) I'm not sure I fully understand you on that one. You want to estimate, > that after inserting some record into your database it will reach your > maximum size? Any way I don't know how to do this... For some reason the size of database is asked to restrict to 900MB. So I have to make efforts to make sure that its size is less than 900MB. Maybe I should not do it. :) Thanks a lot Duan > Duan Ligong rašė: >> Hi, all >> >> I have several questions to bother you. :) >> >> 1 For postgresql, is it POSSIBLE to store different tables in different >> locations where we specify? For one postgresql management process, >> is it POSSIBLE to store different database in differentlocations >> where we specify? >> >> 2 Is it appropriate to use Postgresql to store data for the following >> situation: >> The whole system consists of about 400 machines and I have to develop a >> program collecting the information about capacity and performance and >> networt setting and so on of each machines and displaying them for the >> administrators and some related guys. Moreover, I have to store some >> history data to display graphes >> and curvers. My design is as follows: one daemon process running on each >> machine to collect data and send it to the database which is in one >> specified machine. >> The bad thing is that the size of database is asked to be resricted in >> 900MB for some reasons. >> The questions are: >> (a) Is it appropriate to use postgresql database in this case? If not, >> any sugguestion will be appreciated. >> In fact considered using common file to store data. but you know, >> it is possible that daemon processes on other 399 machines send data >> simultaneously, ... >> >> (b) It seems hard to estimate the maximum size of the database, because >> frequently updating and inserting opreations will cause unused >> space not acclaiming in time and we have to routinely vaccum. >> Is there any good and easy, :) way to estimate the maximum size of >> postgresql database accurately? >> >> Best regards, >> Duan >> >> >> -- >> Duan Ligong >> TEL : 0561-75-1925-6201 >> 800-81-569-6201 >> E-Mail : l-duan@zd.cnes.jp.nec.com >> > > > -- > Julius Tuskenis > Programuotojas > UAB nSoft > mob. +37068233050 > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin >
> we use postgresql to store so little data as only 600MB or so, while > for this, > we have to do consume some efforts on managing and maintaining the > database. I am not sure whether it is a good and wise design. > Is there any more wiser design for this case? In my case postgresql is like "fire and forget". Once installed it needs to be vacuumed regularly. Thats all. Well, backups also. What maintenance do you do? > For some reason the size of database is asked to restrict to 900MB. > So I have to make efforts to make sure that its size is less than 900MB. > Maybe I should not do it. :) It depends on how much data you want to store. You said you have 400 machines in the network, so 900Mb limits you to ~2Mb per machine. You decide if thats enough.
Julius Tuskenis wrote: >> For some reason the size of database is asked to restrict to 900MB. >> So I have to make efforts to make sure that its size is less than 900MB. Two things I can think of that may get you a message like this. 1. Available disk space (or quotas for the postgres user) - which partition is the db on and how much free space does it have? 2. You are storing all data in the same row and column (as in adding to data there not inserting data into a new row) which is restricted to 1GB What is the exact message you get in regards to this limit? And where does this appear to come from? -- Shane Ambler pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz
Shane Ambler wrote: > Two things I can think of that may get you a message like this. > > 1. Available disk space (or quotas for the postgres user) - which > partition is the db on and how much free space does it have? Well, In order to keep my system running 7x24, I make a cluster for it with the third-party cluster software and the size of mirror disk where the data is rcped to the backup server in time automatically is 1GB. > 2. You are storing all data in the same row and column (as in adding to > data there not inserting data into a new row) which is restricted to 1GB There are several tables where the rows are frequently updated and inserted and deleted. > > What is the exact message you get in regards to this limit? > And where does this appear to come from? The size of mirror disk is 1GB, on which I cannot decided. > -- > > Shane Ambler > pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz > > Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz > > -- > Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin >