From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Juan Casero (FL FLC)" <Juan(dot)Casero(at)wholefoods(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Sun Fire T2000 and PostgreSQL 8.1.3 |
Date: | 2006-04-13 02:55:55 |
Message-ID: | 200604130255.k3D2tt219058@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I am thinking the most flexible solution would be to get a dual Operon
machine, and initially do both data loading and queries on the same
machine. When the load gets too high, buy a second machine and set it
up as a Slony slave and run your queries on that, and do the data loads
on the original machine as master.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Casero (FL FLC) wrote:
> Because I plan to develop a rather large (for us anyway) data warehouse
> with PostgreSQL. I am looking for the right hardware that can handle
> queries on a database that might grow to over a 100 gigabytes. Right
> now our decision support system based on postgresql 8.1.3 stores retail
> sales information for about 4 four years back *but* only as weekly
> summaries. I want to build the system so it can handle daily sales
> transactions also. You can imagine how many more records this will
> involve so I am looking for hardware that can give me the performance I
> need to make this project useable. In other words parsing and loading
> the daily transaction logs for our stores is likely to take huge amounts
> of effort. I need a machine that can complete the task in a reasonable
> amount of time. As people start to query the database to find sales
> related reports and information I need to make sure the queries will run
> reasonably fast for them. I have already hand optimized all of my
> queries on the current system. But currently I only have weekly sales
> summaries. Other divisions in our company have done a similar project
> using MS SQL Server on SMP hardware far outclassing the database server
> I currently use and they report heavy loads on the server with less than
> ideal query run times. I am sure I can do my part to optimize the
> queries once I start this project but there is only so much you can do.
> At some point you just need more powerful hardware. This is where I am
> at right now. Apart from that since I will only get this one chance to
> buy a new server for data processing I need to make sure that I buy
> something that can grow over time as our needs change. I don't want to
> buy a server only to find out later that it cannot meet our needs with
> future database projects. I have to balance a limited budget, room for
> future performance growth, and current system requirements. Trust me it
> isn't easy.
>
>
> Juan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 2:57 AM
> To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Cc: Juan Casero (FL FLC); Luke Lonergan
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Sun Fire T2000 and PostgreSQL 8.1.3
>
> Juan,
>
> > Ok that is beginning to become clear to me. Now I need to determine
> > if this server is worth the investment for us. Maybe it is not a
> > speed daemon but to be honest the licensing costs of an SMP aware
> > RDBMS is outside our budget.
>
> You still haven't explained why you want multi-threaded queries. This
> is sounding like keeping up with the Joneses.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
> Aglio Database Solutions
> San Francisco
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-13 04:42:24 | Re: Inserts optimization? |
Previous Message | Jignesh K. Shah | 2006-04-13 01:53:33 | Re: bad performance on Solaris 10 |