Re: Opteron scaling with PostgreSQL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Jim Seymour
> Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 12:27 PM
> To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Opteron scaling with PostgreSQL
>
>
> Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 07:19:05AM -0400, Jim Seymour wrote:
> > > "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Another important point is that the data in an organization is
> > > > always more valuable than the hardware and the software.
> > > >
> > > > Hose up the hardware and the software, and insurance gets new
> > > > stuff.
> > > >
> > > > Hose up the data and you are really hosed for good.
> > >
> > > It's amazing, how many people don't seem to get that.
> >
> > It's often not true.
> >
> > I use postgresql for massive data-mining of a bunch of high-update
> > rate data sources. The value of the data decreases rapidly
> as it ages.
> > Data over a month old is worthless. Data over a week old has very
> > little value.
> [snip]
> >
>
> Good argument and well-made. So s/always/frequently/ in Dann
> Corbit's comments. Perhaps even "most often." The point is:
> Many people, some even so-called "SysAdmins," will compromise
> on hardware and software, apparently w/o thought to the fact
> that the unique, original, irreplaceable data that hardware
> and software is handling is indeed valuable and (possibly)
> irreplaceable.

In addition, a data warehouse is a special case, since the source data
remains untouched.

With a data warehouse, you intentionally destroy and recreate it on a
frequent basis.

My statement remains true. The data is more valuable than the hardware.
But in the case of a data warehouse, if the warehouse "burns to the
ground" you can create another one on-demand. Since the original data
is not destroyed, the data is not destroyed. If the original data from
which the warehouse is derived were to be destroyed, then we see the
value of the data.

Of course, there are special cases where you don't care if you lose
data. But it is not unusual for DBAs and Sysadmins to underestimate the
value of the data, even in these special cases.

For example, if a data warehouse goes down, and the data warehouse is
used to compute month-end closing information, a delay of 3 days to redo
everything can be a tremendous expense.

There is an exception to every rule, of course. But I raise my hand and
shout about this issue just so that people will think about it.
What will the real cost be, if my database fails? Will it really be
cheaper to do data integrity shortcuts rather than buying faster
hardware?

I will tend to err on the side of data integrity, for sure.