From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>
To: pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 19:33:30 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Large databases, performance
Reply-To: shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in
Message-ID: <3D9C9B8A.30310.A16469F@localhost>
References: <3D9C8712.9513.9C6521D@localhost>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0210031353540.26902-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body

On 3 Oct 2002 at 13:56, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
> It's one hell of a DB you're building. I'm sure I'm not the only one interested
> so to satisfy those of us who are nosey: can you say what the application is?
> 
> I'm sure we'll all understand if it's not possible for you mention such
> information.

Well, I can't tell everything but somethings I can..

1) This is a system that does not have online capability yet. This is an 
attempt to provide one.

2) The goal is to avoid costs like licensing oracle. I am sure this would make 
a great example for OSDB advocacy, which ever database wins..

3) The database size estimates, I put earlier i.e. 9 billion tuples/900GB data 
size, are in a fixed window. The data is generated from some real time systems. 
You can imagine the rate.

4) Further more there are timing restrictions attached to it. 5K inserts/sec. 
4800 queries per hour with response time of 10 sec. each. It's this aspect that 
has forced us for partitioning..

And contrary to my earlier information, this is going to be a live system 
rather than a back up one.. A better win to postgresql.. I hope it makes it.

And BTW, all these results were on reiserfs. We didn't found much of difference 
in write performance between them. So we stick to reiserfs. And of course we 
got the latest hot shot Mandrake9 with 2.4.19-16 which really made difference 
over RHL7.2..

Bye
 Shridhar

--
QOTD:	"Do you smell something burning or is it me?"		-- Joan of Arc