| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, selvi88 <selvi(dot)dct(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postgres performance tunning |
| Date: | 2011-01-06 21:31:54 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinQmo7F+fu90X10Qy3GkQDZzObZJ1Wp3sC9N=pe@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> I can sustain about 5,000 transactions per second on a machine with 8
>> cores (2 years old) and 14 15k seagate hard drives.
>
> Right. You can hit 2 to 3000/second with a relatively inexpensive system,
> so long as you have a battery-backed RAID controller and a few hard drives.
> Doing 5K writes/second is going to take a giant pile of hard drive or SSDs
> to pull off. There is no possible way to meet the performance objectives
> here without a lot more cores in the server and some pretty beefy storage
> too.
Is this with synchronous_commit on, or off?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Broers | 2011-01-06 21:36:00 | Re: plan question - query with order by and limit not choosing index depends on size of limit, table |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-01-06 18:58:59 | Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers? |