Robert Haas wrote:
2009/11/14 Laszlo Nagy <gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
32GB is for one table only. This server runs other applications, and you
need to leave space for sort memory, shared buffers etc. Buying 128GB memory
would solve the problem, maybe... but it is too expensive. And it is not
safe. Power out -> data loss.
I'm sorry I though he was talking about keeping the database in memory
with fsync=off. Now I see he was only talking about the OS disk cache.
My server has 24GB RAM, and I cannot easily expand it unless I throw out
some 2GB modules, and buy more 4GB or 8GB modules. But... buying 4x8GB
ECC RAM (+throwing out 4x2GB RAM) is a lot more expensive than buying
some 64GB SSD drives. 95% of the table in question is not modified. Only
read (mostly with index scan). Only 5% is actively updated.
This is why I think, using SSD in my case would be effective.
Sorry for the confusion.
L
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
