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 F2F3B5283F for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:41:04 -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 72411-09 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:40:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from frank.wiles.org (frank.wiles.org [24.124.39.75]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 396C352934 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:40:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from kungfu (frank.wiles.org [127.0.0.1]) by frank.wiles.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id j5MHiax3028379; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:44:36 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:42:32 -0500 From: Frank Wiles To: Josh Berkus Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance Tuning Article Message-Id: <20050622124232.71b05e3f.frank@wiles.org> In-Reply-To: <200506221016.03808.josh@agliodbs.com> References: <20050622095227.05938982.frank@wiles.org> <200506221016.03808.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200506/441 X-Sequence-Number: 13078 On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:16:03 -0700 Josh Berkus wrote: > 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 Thanks! These changes have been incorporated. > 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. I'll work this bit of wisdom in later tonight. Thanks again for the feedback. --------------------------------- Frank Wiles http://www.wiles.org ---------------------------------