From: "Lionel" <lionel@art-informatique.com>
Subject: Re: Hardware HD choice...
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:08:53 +0200
Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <gds6rm$tvb$1@news.hub.org>
References: <gdq44g$f4o$1@news.hub.org>
	<dcc563d10810230938n4672582bo2ec8b989f41c5430@mail.gmail.com>
	<dcc563d10810231016x2b66b7b8i5f6e7d2fb0ea0b6f@mail.gmail.com>
	<a1ec7d000810231948w1c436619h307e6ac19b88111b@mail.gmail.com>
	<dcc563d10810232241w445606f2wf12af9b7a7997622@mail.gmail.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org


"Scott Marlowe" wrote:
> I second this.  Partitioning in time in past reporting databases
> resulted in huge performance improvements for select queries.

Most statements will load data from a single year, but multiple monthes.
I have a integer field containing the year and will use it for 
partitionning.
It will also help a lot to remove one year after 4 years of activity.


Actually this same database is used with 2 millions of lines per year 
(instead of 30). It is loaded with 3 years and runs quite fast 
unpartitionned on a 4 years old single SCSI HD with 2Go of RAM, single core 
pentium4.
It runs a LOT faster on a quad xeon 2.83GHz with 8Go of ram and SATA HD, 
which is quite common now for dedicated servers.

I tried partitionning on it: it showed no performance gain for such a small 
size, but it is an evidence that it will help with 30 millions of 
lines/year.

OK, thanks to all your recommandations, I will ask hosters for a RAID10 
4x250go SATA.