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 8BB81DC58A for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:14:03 -0400 (AST) 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 13682-03 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:14:02 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.Mi8.com (d01gw03.mi8.com [63.240.6.42]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C182ADC5D7 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:14:00 -0400 (AST) Received: from 172.16.1.110 by mail.Mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D3)); Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:13:51 -0500 X-Server-Uuid: E847189C-FC88-4913-9CD4-DE66914F83C0 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.160]) by D01SMTP01.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:11:53 -0500 Received: from 69.181.100.71 ([69.181.100.71]) by MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ( [172.16.1.219]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ( [172.16.1.106]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:11:53 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004 Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 11:11:53 -0800 Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "Ron" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases Thread-Index: AcXzf2L/4YrM1hDySwKeNGP6hx/XsgABwoDi In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.0.20051127114155.01dbf868@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Nov 2005 19:11:53.0725 (UTC) FILETIME=[6D7182D0:01C5F386] X-WSS-ID: 6F94DAE519O4545944-04-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.253 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.253] X-Spam-Score: 1.253 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200511/531 X-Sequence-Number: 15788 Ron, On 11/27/05 9:10 AM, "Ron" wrote: > Clever use of RAM can get a 5TB sequential scan down to ~17mins. > > Yes, it's a lot of data. But sequential scan times should be in the > mins or low single digit hours, not days. Particularly if you use > RAM to maximum advantage. Unfortunately, RAM doesn't help with scanning from disk at all. WRT using network interfaces to help - it's interesting, but I think what you'd want to connect to is other machines with storage on them. - Luke