| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | <david(at)lang(dot)hm> |
| Cc: | "Orhan Aglagul" <oaglagul(at)cittio(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: |
| Date: | 2007-05-09 11:36:19 |
| Message-ID: | 87d51ai5zg.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
<david(at)lang(dot)hm> writes:
> with a standard 7200 rpm drive ~150 transactions/sec sounds about right
>
> to really speed things up you want to get a disk controller with a battery
> backed cache so that the writes don't need to hit the disk to be safe.
Note that this is only if you're counting transactions/sec in a single
session. You can get much more if you have many sessions since they can all
commit together in a single disk i/o.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-05-09 11:58:25 | Re: Nested loops overpriced |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-05-09 11:31:11 | Re: What's The Difference Between VACUUM and VACUUM ANALYZE? |