Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F6B632D02 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:42:44 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12003-02 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 20:42:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from madmax.bizintegrators.com (madmax.bizintegrators.com [64.94.184.54]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B49632C4E for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:42:32 -0400 (AST) Received: from shelca (p65-147.acedsl.com [66.114.65.147]) (authenticated bits=0) by madmax.bizintegrators.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id o22KgU5v025620 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:42:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/ From: Francisco Reyes To: Pgsql performance Subject: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:42:37 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loftmail-Check: No X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 64.94.184.88 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.873 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=-0.874, BAYES_50=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201003/23 X-Sequence-Number: 37848 Anyone has any experience doing analytics with postgres. In particular if 10K rpm drives are good enough vs using 15K rpm, over 24 drives. Price difference is $3,000. Rarely ever have more than 2 or 3 connections to the machine. So far from what I have seen throughput is more important than TPS for the queries we do. Usually we end up doing sequential scans to do summaries/aggregates.