Re: sustained update load of 1-2k/sec

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: Bob Ippolito <bob(at)redivi(dot)com>, Mark Cotner <mcotner(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: sustained update load of 1-2k/sec
Date: 2005-08-19 14:09:05
Message-ID: 18000.1124460545@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> As far as the question "can PG do 1-2k xact/sec", the answer is "yes
>> if you throw enough hardware at it". Spending enough money on the
>> disk subsystem is the key ...
>>
> The 1-2k xact/sec for MySQL seems suspicious, sounds very much like
> write-back cached, not write-through, esp. considering that heavy
> concurrent write access isn't said to be MySQLs strength...

> I wonder if preserving the database after a fatal crash is really
> necessary, since the data stored sounds quite volatile; in this case,
> fsync=false might be sufficient.

Yeah, that's something to think about. If you do need full transaction
safety, then you *must* have a decent battery-backed-write-cache setup,
else your transaction commit rate will be limited by disk rotation
speed --- for instance, a single connection can commit at most 250 xacts
per second if the WAL log is on a 15000RPM drive. (You can improve this
to the extent that you can spread activity across multiple connections,
but I'm not sure you can expect to reliably have 8 or more connections
ready to commit each time the disk goes 'round.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron 2005-08-19 14:54:57 Re: sustained update load of 1-2k/sec
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-08-19 14:03:12 Re: Finding bottleneck