X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E2DD7D79 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:09:24 -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 97038-04 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:09:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from flake.decibel.org (flake.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 967DDD7E0E for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:09:16 -0300 (ADT) Received: by flake.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id EF90E152AE; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:09:17 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:09:17 -0500 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: tobbe Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance for relative large DB Message-ID: <20050829210917.GC11282@pervasive.com> References: <1124799264.282119.167760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <60wtmcptzg.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> <1124864702.822522.64410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1124864702.822522.64410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p10 i386 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.01 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200508/502 X-Sequence-Number: 14249 On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:25:02PM -0700, tobbe wrote: > Hi Chris. > > Thanks for the answer. > Sorry that i was a bit unclear. > > 1) We update around 20.000 posts per night. Doesn't seem like a lot at all. > 2) What i meant was that we suspect that the DBMS called PervasiveSQL > that we are using today is much to small. That's why we're looking for > alternatives. Just so no one gets confused, PervasiveSQL is our Btrieve-based database; it has nothing to do with Pervasive Posgres or PosgreSQL. Also, feel free to contact me off-list if you'd like our help with this. > Today we base our solution much on using querry-specific tables created > at night, so instead of doing querrys direct on the "post" table (with > 4-6M rows) at daytime, we have the data pre-aligned in several much > smaller tables. This is just to make the current DBMS coop with our > amount of data. > > What I am particulary interested in is if we can expect to run all our > select querrys directly from the "post" table with PostgreSQL. Probably, depending on what those queries are, what hardware you have and how the table is laid out. Unless you've got a really high query load I suspect you could handle this on some fairly mundane hardware... > 3) How well does postgres work with load balancing environments. Is it > built-in? As Chris said, there is no built-in solution. PGCluster (http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgcluster/) is a possible solution should you need clustering/load balancing, but as I mentioned I suspect you should be ok without it. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com 512-569-9461