2011/9/11 pasman pasmański <pasma...@gmail.com> > For 10 TB table and 3hours, disks should have a transfer about 1GB/s > (seqscan). > >
I have 6 Gb/s disk drives, so it should be not too far, maybe 5 hours for a seqscan. i > 2011/9/11, Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com>: > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Igor Chudov <ichu...@gmail.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. > > > > -- > > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list ( > pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) > > To make changes to your subscription: > > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance > > > > > -- > ------------ > pasman > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance >
