| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ian Westmacott <ianw(at)intellivid(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM and read-mostly tables |
| Date: | 2005-04-05 15:39:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20050405153904.GP93835@decibel.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:13:06AM -0400, Ian Westmacott wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 00:41, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > We'll only answer if you do a write-up on your database. :P
> >
> > Seriously, those are some seriously big numbers. What else is the
> > database doing? What hardware is it running on?
>
>
> We run on a dual 3.2GHz P4 with 2GB RAM, but are still
> finalizing the storage hardware. We've tried various
> flavors of RAID, filesystems and volume management (and
> are anxious to try out tablespaces in 8). We've found
> fragmentation to be our largest limiting factor. XFS
> helps with that, and seems to provide the highest
> sustained throughput on raw tables, but its not the end
> of the story since fragmentation is still high.
What else is the database doing besides the inserts?
And if UFS is available for linux you should might try it.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ian Westmacott | 2005-04-05 17:47:08 | Re: VACUUM and read-mostly tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-05 15:34:40 | Re: VACUUM and read-mostly tables |