X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057BA9DC9E8 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:06:12 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 56485-03 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:06:12 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from noel.decibel.org (unknown [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD5E9DC9B1 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:06:09 -0400 (AST) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C0BF13982E; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:06:09 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:06:09 -0600 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: Antal Attila Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: What's the best hardver for PostgreSQL 8.1? Message-ID: <20051220200609.GM28771@pervasive.com> References: <43A84D03.7090002@ritek.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43A84D03.7090002@ritek.hu> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.043 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043] X-Spam-Score: 0.043 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/512 X-Sequence-Number: 16333 On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 07:27:15PM +0100, Antal Attila wrote: > We have complex databases with some 100million rows (2-3million new How much space does that equate to? > records per month). Our current servers are working on low resposibility > in these days, so we have to buy new hardver for database server. Some > weeks ago we started to work with PostgreSQL8.1, which solved the > problem for some months. > There are some massive, hard query execution, which are too slow (5-10 > or more minutes). The parallel processing is infrequent (rarely max. 4-5 > parallel query execution). > So we need high performance in query execution with medium parallel > processability. > What's your opinion what productions could help us? What is the best or > only better choice? > The budget line is about 30 000$ - 40 000$. Have you optimized the queries? Items that generally have the biggest impact on performance in decreasing order: 1. System architecture 2. Database design 3. (for long-running/problem queries) Query plans 4. Disk I/O 5. Memory 6. CPU So, I'd make sure that the queries have been optimized (and that includes tuning postgresql.conf) before assuming you need more hardware. Based on what you've told us (very little parallelization), then your biggest priority is probably either disk IO or memory (or both). Without knowing the size of your database/working set it's difficult to provide more specific advice. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461