Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Lists wrote:
Server is a dual core xeon 3GB ram and 2 mirrors of 15k SAS drives (1
for most data, 1 for wal and a few tables and indexes)
In total all databases on the server are about 10G on disk (about 2GB
in pgdump format).
I'd suggest buying as much RAM as you can fit into the server. RAM is
cheap, and with a database of that size more cache could have a dramatic
effect.
I'll second this. Although it doesn't really answer the original
question, you have to keep in mind that for read-intensive workloads,
caching will give you the biggest benefit by far, orders of magnitude
more than replication solutions unless you want to spend a lot of $ on
hardware (which I take it you don't if you are reluctant to add new
disks). Keeping the interesting parts of the DB completely in RAM makes
a big difference, common older (P4-based) Xeon boards can usually be
upgraded to 12-16GB RAM, newer ones to anywhere between 16 and 192GB ...
As for replication solutions - Slony I wouldn't recommend (tried it for
workloads with large writes - bad idea), but PgQ looks very solid and
you could either use Londiste or build your own very fast non-RDBMS
slaves using PgQ by keeping the data in an optimized format for your
queries (e.g. if you don't need joins - use TokyoCabinet/Berkeley DB).
Regards,
Marinos
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
