Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cgFk7-0005jP-Sm for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:04:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cgFk7-0002HS-Fq for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:04:55 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cgFiF-0008Jl-EL for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:02:59 +0000 Received: from mail-qt0-x241.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::241]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cgFi8-0005Tl-1G for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:02:58 +0000 Received: by mail-qt0-x241.google.com with SMTP id b16so15388181qte.2 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:02:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=zdBfZcndmRfx5LHm0uu5YaUJJlvUTevKgT0DbCSaMR0=; b=SFPATSZ+j7C8+lnJd3zcJ0X+hJ6eh8hQpBPsPMNgzCmamu1DqQLO6ys0BO6zTqv8OK ehzz0WOdAfF+uILmj9SZ1c/OBl9Qoesf5ZolorXWiWTNcJc3AxxdHVpkdje5exDVZbng zMfNgXCtlySjk+GwzdaO5PhlZ5ag+AdnU4jdBMUJwCMiUcfNECOsdeC0kmCkG+aWxpP0 p/9mM8Yf8bBwTjflrLWM6WNyHGnX6JCEyFRnTeWqZwzeljbeE67BmHiNvwI7xt/kxu/a agIhJ3eiAWKfFWCKpcWqZrdczecSFBe0IqEy5xyyQLpU5F9o5SVFaPwqNiZbRZvN6bRU gEFA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=zdBfZcndmRfx5LHm0uu5YaUJJlvUTevKgT0DbCSaMR0=; b=GW2d4YY9x6rWUzzLxx4VVaP7GF3pWrOWvXAJbWkQJnmvtFwqIevMZe4VA5wyp9ye4I d7tXZyCiREMh05b8y/jwABMVfGcbvOg3Pyh2vTNMGIDMihLguGSfuX+dNRcGkS30kNsF IqQPlxgVgRQLwWOc5g98WoX4rPVihdq1cfDvcNFiDXTEOp49+x/DZXUCiDioaiIHeq45 uYu7ePYJTfBFKaDZoAbJ//nQwMeZkil/yc9/8fXKifhuUY1ppTAKUwBQbSG/dBbKzkor kpxO8fFTWxRv83LqHqnXP1PyGOpg6IFDR4vQl3dYAgRTAICxBcE/gLqFAqiY8RdmlPO8 3+Yw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lpU+gq5n1EnOdgKCU16nlG8n3dmO+spXU3etSegZoeQ1CY0GuHlTfw0HK2Y0k8ZQ== X-Received: by 10.237.51.37 with SMTP id u34mr29386468qtd.40.1487703770011; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:02:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from irylachi ([200.55.161.75]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s65sm14497510qkd.50.2017.02.21.11.02.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:02:49 -0800 (PST) From: "Lazaro Garcia" To: "'John Scalia'" , "'Yuri Paes Leme'" Cc: References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Best system for a data warehouse application Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 14:02:52 +0100 Message-ID: <003301d28c42$d10e4830$732ad890$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01D28C4B.32D2B030" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQHMRiFl8n4vmxKPbSw3rrswBDHgOwKci6tcAjK0YNahWX8cAA== Content-Language: es-mx X-Pg-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-admin Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01D28C4B.32D2B030 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You could use pg_upgrade utility. =20 Regards. =20 De: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org = [mailto:pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org] En nombre de John Scalia Enviado el: martes, 21 de febrero de 2017 06:58 p. m. Para: Yuri Paes Leme CC: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Asunto: Re: [ADMIN] Best system for a data warehouse application =20 Good to know, We haven't upgraded to 9.6 yet, however, but I'll suggest = that for this upgrade. =20 On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Yuri Paes Leme > wrote: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/how-parallel-query-works.html So, IMHO, if you can use the 9.6.x version, more cores, more power =20 On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 at 14:39 John Scalia > wrote: Hi all, One of my system admins has approached me about replacing our production = data warehouse system. I believe I know the answer, but would just like = more opinions. He's giving me two options so far: 1) CPU =3D Intel e5-2637 3.5GHz 4 core with hyperthreading vs. 2) CPU =3D Intel e5-2650v4 2.2GHz 14 core with hyperthreading The rest of the specs are identical with 512Gb RAM and more than 2 Tb = SSD drives. Our data warehouse is just shy of 2Tb now. I suspect the the = first option would be more optimal as I don't think PostgreSQL can make = effective use of a lot of processor cores. So fewer cores would be = better optimized with the O/S. Can anyone weigh in on whether my = assumptions are correct? -- Jay =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01D28C4B.32D2B030 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You could use pg_upgrade = utility.

 

Regards.

 

De:<= /b> = pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org = [mailto:pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org] En nombre de John = Scalia
Enviado el: martes, 21 de febrero de 2017 06:58 p. = m.
Para: Yuri Paes Leme
CC: = pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Asunto: Re: [ADMIN] Best system for = a data warehouse application

 

Good to = know, We haven't upgraded to 9.6 yet, however, but I'll suggest that for = this upgrade.

 

On Tue, = Feb 21, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Yuri Paes Leme <yuripl@gmail.com> = wrote:

So, = IMHO, if you can use the 9.6.x version, more cores, more = power

 

On = Tue, 21 Feb 2017 at 14:39 John Scalia <jayknowsunix@gmail.com> = wrote:

<= div>

Hi = all,

One of my system admins has approached me = about replacing our production data warehouse system. I believe I know = the answer, but would just like more opinions. He's giving me two = options so far:

1) CPU =3D Intel e5-2637 3.5GHz 4 core = with hyperthreading

vs.

2) CPU =3D Intel = e5-2650v4 2.2GHz 14 core with hyperthreading

The rest of the specs are identical with 512Gb RAM and = more than 2 Tb SSD drives. Our data warehouse is just shy of 2Tb now. I = suspect the the first option would be more optimal as I don't think = PostgreSQL can make effective use of a lot of processor cores. So fewer = cores would be better optimized with the O/S. Can anyone weigh in on = whether my assumptions are correct?
--

Jay

=

 

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01D28C4B.32D2B030--