| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Steven D(dot)Arnold" <stevena(at)neosynapse(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MVCC for massively parallel inserts |
| Date: | 2004-01-06 02:49:03 |
| Message-ID: | 3FFA221F.6090300@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
>You are mistaken to think that CPU is the bottleneck, anyway. It is
>going to be disk bandwidth that's your problem, and throwing more CPUs
>at it would not help. If your insert load exceeds the available disk
>bandwidth, I think you have little choice but to figure out a way to
>divide the workload among multiple independent databases.
>
>
>
If you have the money to purchase multiple machines, you can throw more
hard drives at it...
Hard drives are cheap... (well ide/sata anyway).
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
> regards, tom lane
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
>
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Satrapa | 2004-01-06 04:01:36 | Re: MVCC for massively parallel inserts |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-06 02:26:01 | Re: MVCC for massively parallel inserts |