| From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Thomas Finneid" <tfinneid(at)student(dot)matnat(dot)uio(dot)no> |
| Cc: | "Scott Carey" <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, "Craig Ringer" <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: slow update of index during insert/copy |
| Date: | 2008-09-01 20:49:38 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10809011349q2d0e06c6g61197d9b8cf26ca0@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> dialog box saying this is a bad idea. Now, if it would take you a day
> of downtime to get a dev database back in place and running after a
> power loss, then the bbu may be worth the $200 or so.
I just wanted to comment that depending on how many people depend on
the development machine to get their job done the more easy it is to
justify a battery.
If 20 people rely on a machine to do their job, just multiply their
hourly cost to the company times your restore time for a figure that
will be several times higher than the cost of the battery.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Carey | 2008-09-01 21:03:11 | Re: slow update of index during insert/copy |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2008-09-01 20:42:07 | Re: slow update of index during insert/copy |