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 C9F73D7EC7 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2005 03:30:13 -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 45327-07 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2005 06:30:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.travelamericas.com (unknown [206.130.134.147]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9A9ADD7EC6 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2005 03:30:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 12839 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2005 06:30:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.253?) (10.0.0.253) by verkiel.travelamericas.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 2005 06:30:08 -0000 Message-ID: <43100870.8070406@travelamericas.com> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 23:30:08 -0700 From: Chris Travers User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tobbe Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance for relative large DB References: <1124799264.282119.167760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <60wtmcptzg.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> <1124864702.822522.64410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <1124864702.822522.64410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.042 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.008, FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200508/473 X-Sequence-Number: 14220 tobbe wrote: >Hi Chris. > >Thanks for the answer. >Sorry that i was a bit unclear. > >1) We update around 20.000 posts per night. > >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. > >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. > > 20k transactions per day? Doesn't seem too bad. That amounts to how many transactions per second during peak times? Personally I don't think it will be a problem, but you might want to clarify what sort of load you are expecting during its peak time. >3) How well does postgres work with load balancing environments. Is it >built-in? > > There is no load balancing "built in." You would need to use Slony-I and possibly Pg-Pool for that. I don't know about Pg-Pool, but Slony-I was written in large part by member(s?) of the core development team so even if it is not "built in" it is not as if it is a team of outsiders who wrote it. If you need something proprietary, there are similar solutions with replication built in which are based on PostgreSQL and licensed under proprietary licenses. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting