pg.ddx.io  pgsql-sql@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>
To: pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Large databases, performance
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 21:26:43 +0530
Message-ID: <3D9CB613.1700.A7DEEF0@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3D9C9B8A.30310.A16469F@localhost>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0210031353540.26902-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk>

On 3 Oct 2002 at 19:33, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:

> 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.

Read that fixed time window..

> 
> 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..

Well, we were comparing ext3 v/s reiserfs. I don't remember the journalling 
mode of ext3 but we did a 10 GB write test. Besides converting the RAID to RAID-
0 from RAID-5 might have something to do about it.

There was a discussion on hackers some time back as in which file system is 
better. I hope this might have an addition over it..


Bye
 Shridhar

--
	"What terrible way to die."	"There are no good ways."		-- Sulu and Kirk, "That 
Which Survives", stardate unknown




view thread (48+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <3D9CB613.1700.A7DEEF0@localhost>
Permalink:  ../3D9CB613.1700.A7DEEF0@localhost/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/3D9CB613.1700.A7DEEF0@localhost

 · 

reply

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-sql@postgresql.org
  Cc: shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in, pgsql-general@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Large databases, performance
  In-Reply-To: <3D9CB613.1700.A7DEEF0@localhost>

* 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