From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
Cc: | Francisco Reyes <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com>, Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics |
Date: | 2010-03-02 21:21:24 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d11003021321u64a90ef7ybaf9113fd3ec1c28@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:14 PM, <david(at)lang(dot)hm> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Francisco Reyes wrote:
>
>> Anyone has any experience doing analytics with postgres. In particular if
>> 10K rpm drives are good enough vs using 15K rpm, over 24 drives. Price
>> difference is $3,000.
>>
>> Rarely ever have more than 2 or 3 connections to the machine.
>>
>> So far from what I have seen throughput is more important than TPS for the
>> queries we do. Usually we end up doing sequential scans to do
>> summaries/aggregates.
>
> With sequential scans you may be better off with the large SATA drives as
> they fit more data per track and so give great sequential read rates.
True, I just looked at the Hitachi 7200 RPM 2TB Ultrastar and it lists
and average throughput of 134 Megabytes/second which is quite good.
While seek time is about double that of a 15krpm drive, short stroking
can lower that quite a bit. Latency is still 2x as much, but there's
not much to do about that.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Francisco Reyes | 2010-03-02 21:28:35 | Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics |
Previous Message | david | 2010-03-02 21:14:52 | Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics |