From: Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com>
To: david@lang.hm
Cc: Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:36:21 -0500
Message-ID: <cone.1267565781.443763.32557.1000@shelca> (raw)
References: <cone.1267562557.293175.32557.1000@shelca>
<alpine.DEB.2.00.1003021313310.5131@asgard.lang.hm>
david@lang.hm writes:
> With sequential scans you may be better off with the large SATA drives as
> they fit more data per track and so give great sequential read rates.
I lean more towards SAS because of writes.
One common thing we do is create temp tables.. so a typical pass may be:
* sequential scan
* create temp table with subset
* do queries against subset+join to smaller tables.
I figure the concurrent read/write would be faster on SAS than on SATA. I am
trying to move to having an external enclosure (we have several not in use
or about to become free) so I could separate the read and the write of the
temp tables.
Lastly, it is likely we are going to do horizontal partitioning (ie master
all data in one machine, replicate and then change our code to read parts of
data from different machine) and I think at that time the better drives will
do better as we have more concurrent queries.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: lists@stringsutils.com, david@lang.hm
Subject: Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics
In-Reply-To: <cone.1267565781.443763.32557.1000@shelca>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox