Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B90E71337CAE for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 19:57:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40974-02-8 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 22:57:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.186]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F601337C12 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 19:39:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (mail.highperformancepostgresql.com [71.179.240.8]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap4) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Mg6ej-1Q5eIV2iiD-00NNr4; Wed, 04 May 2011 00:39:35 +0200 Message-ID: <4DC08420.7050602@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 18:39:28 -0400 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Rostron CC: Alan Hodgson , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: amazon ec2 References: <201105031241.20348.ahodgson@simkin.ca> <201105031309.52154.ahodgson@simkin.ca> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:IvhlZ1s2XjEmu0r9KbvovrQUNub3AFTWlKcWYKljHYu wwNySm1uLGuJAKK1Lb1+LxtNpcl9w3sp9iJT6iyBxMQFp7IDO0 +H0DGKmW6iQ1HvLSJfSF79qf1huRb76HzCBjYSJ3NODhZk2pq7 6h4j5QnoSyAPjqmEYZjeVHlXDx2FRx7oPUorQWQ0+z14VVM3rO aUPuMTVI/MRSo6iK3F/buUtP+n5OPwrpTTVfkWNzZ8= X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201105/36 X-Sequence-Number: 43545 Mark Rostron wrote: > the success/failure of it depends on your typical query activity, the > size of your critical result set, and whether you are able to get > enough RAM to make this work. Basically, it all comes down to "does the working set of data I access frequently fit in RAM?" If it does, it's possible to get reasonable performance out of an EC2 instance. The EBS disks are so slow, both on average and particularly in cases where you have contention with other users slowing you down, that any situation where you have to use them is never going to work well. If most of the data fits in RAM, and the CPU resources available to your instance are sufficient to service your queries, you might see acceptable performance. > greenplum is also a better parallel machine than postgres, so > combining the cache technique above with greenplum compression and > parallel query, i have been able to get 20:1 reduction in response > times for some of our queries. I've also seen over a 20:1 speedup over PostgreSQL by using Greenplum's free Community Edition server, in situations where its column store + compression features work well on the data set. That's easiest with an append-only workload, and the data set needs to fit within the constraints where indexes on compressed data are useful. But if you fit the use profile it's good at, you end up with considerable ability to trade-off using more CPU resources to speed up queries. It effectively increases the amount of data that can be cached in RAM by a large multiple, and in the EC2 context (where any access to disk is very slow) it can be quite valuable. My colleague Gabrielle wrote something about setting this up on an earlier version of Greenplum's software at http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/en/2010/03/installing-greenplum-sne-ec2.html that gives an idea how that was setup. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books