From: | Carson Gross <carsongross(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | bret_stern(at)machinemanagement(dot)com |
Cc: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Upgrade questions |
Date: | 2012-03-14 16:02:15 |
Message-ID: | CAO92UoGDzu66QN-PcAbeobgDfAFT0RWVoOD1Ktk5Y22cWLBqpg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Heh. OK, so I'll plan on about 100 writes per second... *gulp*
Thanks a bunch for the info guys.
Cheers,
Carson
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Bret Stern <
bret_stern(at)machinemanagement(dot)com> wrote:
> I felt pretty good about my server until I read this.
> On Wed, 2012-03-14 at 00:24 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
> > On 03/13/12 8:41 PM, Carson Gross wrote:
> > > Does anyone have a reasonable guess as to the inserts per second
> > > postgres is capable of these days on middle-of-the-road hardware? Any
> > > order of magnitude would be fine: 10, 100, 1000, 10,000.
> >
> > my dedicated database server in my lab, which is a 2U dual Xeon X5660
> > box with 12 cores at 2.8ghz, 48GB ram, and 20 15000rpm SAS drives in a
> > RAID10 with a 1GB flash-cached raid card, can pretty easily sustain 6000
> > or more writes/second given enough threads doing the work, although
> > indexes, and/or large rows would slow that down. a single
> > connection/thread will not get that much throughput.
> >
> > thats my definition of a middle of the road database server. I have no
> > idea what yours is.
> >
> >
> > --
> > john r pierce N 37, W 122
> > santa cruz ca mid-left coast
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex - | 2012-03-14 16:05:42 | Alter Column from inet to inet[] |
Previous Message | Bret Stern | 2012-03-14 14:54:34 | Re: Upgrade questions |