From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Igor Chudov <ichudov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB |
Date: | 2011-09-11 12:52:05 |
Message-ID: | CAOR=d=0zmw-EGRJyYmwCTxR5g6osbFLS5i-3kzjG05j7S=1JaA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Igor Chudov <ichudov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I have a server with about 18 TB of storage and 48 GB of RAM, and 12
> CPU cores.
1 or 2 fast cores is plenty for what you're doing. But the drive
array and how it's configured etc are very important. There's a huge
difference between 10 2TB 7200RPM SATA drives in a software RAID-5 and
36 500G 15kRPM SAS drives in a RAID-10 (SW or HW would both be ok for
data warehouse.)
> I do not know much about Postgres, but I am very eager to learn and
> see if I can use it for my purposes more effectively than MySQL.
> I cannot shell out $47,000 per CPU for Oracle for this project.
> To be more specific, the batch queries that I would do, I hope,
Hopefully if needs be you can spend some small percentage of that for
a fast IO subsystem is needed.
> would either use small JOINS of a small dataset to a large dataset, or
> just SELECTS from one big table.
> So... Can Postgres support a 5-10 TB database with the use pattern
> stated above?
I use it on a ~3TB DB and it works well enough. Fast IO is the key
here. Lots of drives in RAID-10 or HW RAID-6 if you don't do a lot of
random writing.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | pasman pasmański | 2011-09-11 13:36:41 | Re: Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB |
Previous Message | Igor Chudov | 2011-09-11 12:35:22 | Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB |