On 03/28/2016 02:55 PM, Mat Arye wrote:
> This will run on EC2 (or other cloud service) machines and on ssds.
> Right now runs on m4.4xlarge with 64GiB of ram.
> Willing to pay for beefy instances if it means better performance.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 03/28/2016 02:41 PM, Mat Arye wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am writing a program that needs time-series-based insert
> mostly workload. I need to make the system scaleable with many
> thousand of inserts/s. One of the techniques I plan to use is
> time-based table partitioning and I am trying to figure out
> how large to make my time tables.
>
> Does anybody have any hints on optimal table sizes either in
> terms of rows or in terms of size? Any rule of thumbs I can
> use for table size in relation to amount of memory on the
> machine? Is the size of the index more important than the size
> of the table (if queries mostly use indexes)?
>
> Basically, I am asking for pointers about how to think about
> this problem and any experiences people have had.
>
> Thanks,
> Mat
>
> P.S. I am aware of limits listed here:
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/. I am asking about practical
> size limits for performance consideration.
>
> Your current hardware, or hardware budget might play into the answer.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> <mailto:pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
>
Those who supply real answers on this list um, er, discourage
top-posting. (Not my fave, but there you go)