X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 430435284D for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:15:57 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70878-01 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:15:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (server227.ethosmedia.com [209.128.84.227]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E2C5283F for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:15:43 -0300 (ADT) X-EthosMedia-Virus-Scanned: no infections found Received: from [63.195.55.98] (account josh@agliodbs.com HELO spooky) by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 7517513; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:17:51 -0700 From: Josh Berkus Organization: Aglio Database Solutions To: Frank Wiles Subject: Re: Performance Tuning Article Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:16:03 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <20050622095227.05938982.frank@wiles.org> In-Reply-To: <20050622095227.05938982.frank@wiles.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200506221016.03808.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.012 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200506/440 X-Sequence-Number: 13077 Frank, > I've put together a short article and posted it online regarding > performance tuning PostgreSQL in general. I believe it helps to bring > together the info in a easy to digest manner. I would appreciate any > feedback, comments, and especially any technical corrections. Looks nice. You should mark the link to the perf tips at Varlena.com as "PostgreSQL 7.4" and augment it with the current version here: www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList as well as the Annotated .Conf File: www.powerpostgresql.com/Docs For my part, I've generally seen that SATA disks still suck for read-write applications. I generally rate 1 UltraSCSI = 2 SATA disks for anything but a 99% read application. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco