From: Lionel <lionel@art-informatique.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Which hardware ?
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:53:45 +0200
Message-ID: <g3g27p$2md3$1@news.hub.org> (raw)
References: <g38epm$2pl4$1@news.hub.org>
<20080617142501.GG68434@commandprompt.com>
<Pine.GSO.4.64.0806171108060.7150@westnet.com>
<dcc563d10806170842g6d039d7bsec81fb562ba9facd@mail.gmail.com>
"Scott Marlowe" wrote:
> We had a reporting server with about 80G of data on a machine with 4G
> ram last place I worked, and it could take it a few extra seconds to
> hit the old data, but the SW RAID-10 on it made it much faster at
> reporting than it would have been with a single disk.
Would this be a nice choice ?
HP Proliant DL320 G5p Xeon DC 3 GHz - 8 Go RAM DDR2 ECC
- 4 x 146 Go SAS 15k rpm - RAID-10 HP Smart Array (128 Mo cache)
I finally choose to have 2 data tables:
- one with pre aggregated (dividing size by 10), unpartitionned (=the
database they currently use)
- one with original data, yearly partitionned
I will choose before each statement which table will be used depending on
which select/joins/where/groupby the user choosed.
The aggregated datas will allow me to maintain actual performances (and even
improve it using the new hardware twice more powerfull).
I think lines aggregation will be handled by the java application (excel/csv
file loaded in memory),
which will be much faster than using a trigger on insertion in the full
table.
Thanks.
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: lionel@art-informatique.com
Subject: Re: Which hardware ?
In-Reply-To: <g3g27p$2md3$1@news.hub.org>
* 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