| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Erik Jones <erik(at)myemma(dot)com>, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS |
| Date: | 2007-05-26 16:17:39 |
| Message-ID: | 3692.1180196259@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> A more interesting question is what sort of hardware you need for that
>> actually to be a win, though. Loading a few tables in parallel sounds
>> like an ideal recipe for oversaturating your disk bandwidth...
> you don't actually need that much of disk bandwidth both COPY and CREATE
> INDEX are CPU bottlenecked on modern boxes and reasonable disk
> subsystems - spreading their work over multiple cores/processes can give
> big benefits.
Hmm ... I wonder if that's true for COPY BINARY ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard P. Welty | 2007-05-26 16:30:40 | Re: backup strategies |
| Previous Message | Bill Moran | 2007-05-26 16:17:33 | Re: backup strategies |