"Scott Marlowe" wrote: > We had a reporting server with about 80G of data on a machine with 4G > ram last place I worked, and it could take it a few extra seconds to > hit the old data, but the SW RAID-10 on it made it much faster at > reporting than it would have been with a single disk.
Would this be a nice choice ? HP Proliant DL320 G5p Xeon DC 3 GHz - 8 Go RAM DDR2 ECC - 4 x 146 Go SAS 15k rpm - RAID-10 HP Smart Array (128 Mo cache) I finally choose to have 2 data tables: - one with pre aggregated (dividing size by 10), unpartitionned (=the database they currently use) - one with original data, yearly partitionned I will choose before each statement which table will be used depending on which select/joins/where/groupby the user choosed. The aggregated datas will allow me to maintain actual performances (and even improve it using the new hardware twice more powerfull). I think lines aggregation will be handled by the java application (excel/csv file loaded in memory), which will be much faster than using a trigger on insertion in the full table. Thanks. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
