From: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Quesion about querying distributed databases |
Date: | 2025-03-06 18:16:56 |
Message-ID: | CANzqJaAmNL0_ky6EtXDJ4mXAiW=v1dYM==KkABoCLO=_7oXA2g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 10:47 AM Igor Korot <ikorot01(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025, 7:32 AM Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 9:44 PM me nefcanto <sn(dot)1361(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, that's why I asked you guys. However, encouraging me to go back
>>> to monolith without giving solutions on how to scale, is not helping.
>>>
>>
>> We did. In addition to the ongoing FDW discussion, I mentioned read-only
>> replicas and Citus. As far as *how* to scale vertically, we can offer
>> general advice (more hardware resources, ramdisks for temp stuff, OS-level
>> tuning, separate disk mounts). But a lot of it is tuning Postgres for your
>> specific situation and your specific bottlenecks. Which we are happy to
>> help with. Once we convince you to not throw the baby out with the
>> bathwater. :)
>>
>> 8 Terabytes of data. A single backup took us more than 21 days
>>
>>
>> Something was fundamentally wrong there.
>>
>
> It could happen on an old and drained hardware... 😀
>
8TB databases existed 20+ years ago. Like always, the hardware must fit
the application.
21 days to backup a database absolutely means *many* things were improperly
sized and configured.
--
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2025-03-06 18:22:05 | Re: Duplicate Key Values |
Previous Message | mark bradley | 2025-03-06 18:14:14 | Re: Duplicate Key Values |