Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdlxF-0007Mx-FN for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:01:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdlxE-00078C-U9 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:01:48 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdlxE-000787-1v for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:01:48 +0000 Received: from smtp2.peak6.com ([38.98.137.9]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdlxA-000792-7Z for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:01:46 +0000 X-AuditID: 0a02cb20-b7f726d000005255-ea-50b65186181c Received: from sswchi5pcas2.peak6.net (sswchi5pcas2.peak6.net [10.100.13.24]) by smtp2.peak6.com (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 44.8F.21077.68156B05; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:01:43 -0600 (CST) Received: from [10.10.201.64] (10.10.201.64) by sswchi5pcas2.peak6.net (10.100.13.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:01:42 -0600 Message-ID: <50B65185.6010005@optionshouse.com> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:01:41 -0600 From: Shaun Thomas Reply-To: Organization: Peak6 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Niels_Kristian_Schj=F8dt?= , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Optimize update query References: <1C199C0D-13DF-47B3-944A-B0560C6D2E5A@autouncle.com> <50B61ABF.4070000@optionshouse.com>, <50B6223B.6000100@mejor.pl> <50B641AD.3020204@optionshouse.com> <1E87B44E-A22E-4790-A737-C8EAF504C58E@autouncle.com> In-Reply-To: <1E87B44E-A22E-4790-A737-C8EAF504C58E@autouncle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Length: 1328 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [10.10.201.64] X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmplleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42LhSuGV0G0P3BZgMLGfzWLprrMsFtdnnmN2 YPLoPHye1ePCvmnsAUxRDYw2iXl5+SWJJakKKanFybZK/gUlmfl5xR75pcWpCi6Zxck5iZm5 qUVKCpkptkrGSgoFOYnJqbmpeSW2SokFBal5KUp2XAoYwAaoLDNPITUvOT8lMy/dVskz2F/X wsLUUtdQyS4eGSR0smS0v9zCVjCLs2Lzi51MDYwL2LsYOTgkBEwkbjWYdDFyApliEhfurWfr YuTiEBI4wSjxbVsPK4SzklHiw7snLCBVvAL6EptaHjOC2CwCqhLXj29gA7HZBHQlJvWvALOF BFQk+s7eYAKx+QWEJfZ9aGIGsUUFwiTW7DnEBDFHUOLkTJCZXBwiAlMYJXY0bmEHSQgL6Eg0 bboOtXkPk8S+V31g3ZwCjhI7F34Au4JZwFbiwpzrULa8RPPW2cwQm1UlVjRPZIP4R0Hi/5V3 TBMYhWchWTgLSfssJO0LGJlXMYoXlyUmZ2SaFRTnlhQY6RWkJmab6eWllmxiBMU102mFHYyb e6wOMQpwMCrx8DKEbA0QYk0sK67MPcQowcGsJMLb5LotQIg3JbGyKrUoP76oNCe1+BCjDzCk JjJLiSbnA1NOXkm8obGpgamlqaGpuamhEQ5hJXHe0NBFAUIC6cBEk52aWpBaBDOOiYNTqoGx KTKvdtrV61+Oma5stT1mHxipc8hunqnHRDdpMQuN1Kvrzgfu50144rB0mkTe8fztsbnlFTs5 Shg+7Yzivx7TpObonVfzIeP84boNaQdmJ6zR2L9X9P7lfWuYQ01NdTg/Tv8hsDtU7ppr2+od p2+ty/kU+Fppb3Pr/Z3qzf3ifTebwiu3zGxUYinOSDTUYi4qTgQAHp7QqBgDAAA= X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org On 11/28/2012 11:44 AM, Niels Kristian Schj=F8dt wrote: > Thanks a lot - on the server I already have one additional SSD 250gb > disk, that I don't use for anything at the moment. Goooood. An SSD would actually be better for your data, as it follows more random access patterns, and xlogs are more sequential. But it's better than nothing. And yes, you'd be better off with a RAID-1 of two of these SSDs, because the xlogs are critical to database health. You have your archived copy due to the rsync, which helps. But if you had a crash, there could potentially be a need to replay unarchived transaction logs, and you'd end up with some data loss. > BTW. as you might have seen from the .conf I have a second slave > server with the exact same setup, which currently runs as a hot > streaming replication slave. I might ask a stupid question here, but > this does not affect the performance of the master does it? Only if you're using synchronous replication. From what I saw in the config, that isn't the case. -- Shaun Thomas OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604 312-444-8534 sthomas@optionshouse.com ______________________________________________ See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related= to this email --=20 Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance