Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54B764FCE8 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:35:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 49055-04 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:35:49 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from pyxis.powervt.com.ar (host3.powervt.com.ar [200.43.63.66]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C7964FCC0 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:35:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: from pcfhevia ([201.216.249.98]) by pyxis.powervt.com.ar (IPGroup Mail Server) with ESMTP id 1OT48953; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:35:42 -0300 From: "Fernando Hevia" To: "'dforums'" , "'Scott Marlowe'" , References: <489DD403.6010101@vieonet.com> <48A04C17.3030005@vieonet.com> Subject: Re: Distant mirroring Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:35:22 -0300 Organization: IP-TEL Message-ID: <00d701c8fbc7$de381460$8f01010a@iptel.com.ar> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <48A04C17.3030005@vieonet.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: Acj7v9DFZLY+k59PQ4KYeWia4KyGvQAAwgvg X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.315 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200808/109 X-Sequence-Number: 30990 > -----Mensaje original----- > De: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] En nombre de dforums > Enviado el: Lunes, 11 de Agosto de 2008 11:27 > Para: Scott Marlowe; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] Distant mirroring > > Houlala > > I got headache !!! > > So please help...........;; > > "Assuming they all happen from 9 to 5 and during business > days only, that's about 86 transactions per second. Well > within the realm of a single mirror set to keep up if you > don't make your db work real fat." > > OK i like, But my reality is that to make an insert of a > table that have > 27 millions of entrance it took 200 ms. > so it took between 2 minutes and 10 minutes to treat 3000 > records and dispatch/agregate in other tables. And I have for > now 20000 records every 3 minutes. > You must try to partition that table. It should considerably speed up your inserts. > > So I need a solution to be able to 1st supporting more > transaction, secondly I need to secure the data, and being > able to load balancing the charge. > > Please, give me any advise or suggestion that can help me. > Have you taken into consideration programming a solution on BerkeleyDB? Its an API that provides a high-performance non-SQL database. With such a solution you could achieve several thousands tps on a much smaller hardware. You could use non-work hours to dump your data to Postgres for SQL support for reporting and such. Regards, Fernando