On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Suvankar Roy<suvankar.roy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > Yes, I have got 2 segments and a master host. So, in a way processing should > be faster in Greenplum. > > Actually this is only a sort of Proof of Concept trial that I am carrying > out to notice differences between greenplum and postgres, if any. You're definitely gonna want more data to test with. I run regular vanilla pgsql for stats at work, and we average 0.8M to 2M rows of stats every day. We keep them for up to two years. So, when we reach our max of two years, we're talking somewhere in the range of a billion rows to mess about with. During a not so busy day, the 99,000th row entered into stats for happens at about 3am. Once they're loaded into memory it takes 435 ms to access those 99k rows. Start testing in the millions, at a minimum. Hundreds of millions is more likely to start showing a difference. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
