> What are your thoughts on the right way to use SSDs in a RAID to
> enhance postgres I/O performance? In an earlier reply, you
> indicated one of a "RAID1+0 consisting of several spindles,
> NVRAM-based solution (SSD or PCIe card), or a SAN"
Well, it's a tiered approach. If you can identify yo
On 21/12/13 05:11, Shaun Thomas wrote:
[...]
.
Of course, don't forget to buy modules in multiples of four, otherwise
you're not taking advantage of all the CPU's memory channels. :)
Note some processors have 3 (three) memory channels! And I know of some
with 4 memory channels. So it is im
On 12/20/2013 09:57 AM, Sev Zaslavsky wrote:
There is a separate RAID-1 for WAL, another for tablespace and another
for operating system.
I tend to stick to DB-size / 10 as a minimum, but I also have an OLTP
system. For a more OLAP-type, the ratio is negotiable.
The easiest way to tell is t
On 12/19/2013 03:24 PM, Sergey Konoplev wrote:
2. You are limited with IO
I would also suggest you to upgrade your storage in this case.
I think this is the case. If I recall correctly, his setup includes a
single RAID-1 for everything, and he only has 32GB of RAM. In fact, the
WAL traffic f
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Sev Zaslavsky wrote:
> On 12/19/2013 3:34 PM, Sergey Konoplev wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Sev Zaslavsky wrote:
>>> Table rt_h_nbbo contains several hundred million rows. All rows for a
>>> given
>>> entry_date are appended to this table in an over
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Sev Zaslavsky wrote:
[...]
> Table rt_h_nbbo contains several hundred million rows. All rows for a given
> entry_date are appended to this table in an overnight process every night -
> on the order of several million rows per day.
[...]
> I perceive an ineffici
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Sev Zaslavsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've got a very simple table with a very simple SELECT query, but it takes
> longer on the initial run than I'd like, so I want to see if there is a
> strategy to optimize this.
>
> Table rt_h_nbbo contains several hundred millio
Sev Zaslavsky wrote:
I want to agree with everything Shaun said and add a tiny bit.
> Does loading 24Gb of data in 21 sec seem "about right"?
It's a little on the slow side. You said 1634 page reads. At 9 ms
per read that would be 14.7 seconds. But I'm basing the 9 ms per
page read on my Lin
On 12/12/2013 11:30 AM, Sev Zaslavsky wrote:
_First question_ is: Does loading 24Gb of data in 21 sec seem "about
right" (hardware specs at bottom of email)?
That's actually pretty good. 24GB is a lot of data to process.
_Second question_: Is it possible to tell postgres to physically store
Hello,_
_
I've got a very simple table with a very simple SELECT query, but it
takes longer on the initial run than I'd like, so I want to see if there
is a strategy to optimize this.
Table rt_h_nbbo contains several hundred million rows. All rows for a
given entry_date are appended to this
10 matches
Mail list logo
