From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ron Peacetree <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net> |
Cc: | Matthew Nuzum <mattnuzum(at)gmail(dot)com>, newz(at)bearfruit(dot)org, Postgresql Performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Logarithmic change (decrease) in performance |
Date: | 2005-10-04 20:19:33 |
Message-ID: | 20051004201933.GT40138@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 06:03:03PM -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote:
> 1= keep more of the data set in RAM
> 2= increase the size of your HD IO buffers
> 3= make your RAID sets wider (more parallel vs sequential IO)
> 4= reduce the atomic latency of your RAID sets
> (time for Fibre Channel 15Krpm HD's vs 7.2Krpm SATA ones?)
> 5= make sure your data is as unfragmented as possible
> 6= change you DB schema to minimize the problem
> a= overall good schema design
> b= partitioning the data so that the system only has to manipulate a
> reasonable chunk of it at a time.
Note that 6 can easily swamp the rest of these tweaks. A poor schema
design will absolutely kill any system. Also of great importance is how
you're using the database. IE: are you doing any row-by-row operations?
> In many cases, there's a number of ways to accomplish the above.
> Unfortunately, most of them require CapEx.
>
> Also, ITRW world such systems tend to have this as a chronic
> problem. This is not a "fix it once and it goes away forever". This
> is a part of the regular maintenance and upgrade plan(s).
And why DBA's typically make more money that other IT folks. :)
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-10-04 20:31:02 | Re: Comparative performance |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-10-04 18:55:13 | Re: Slow concurrent update of same row in a given table |