For 10 TB table and 3hours, disks should have a transfer about 1GB/s (seqscan). 2011/9/11, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Igor Chudov <ichudov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I have a server with about 18 TB of storage and 48 GB of RAM, and 12 >> CPU cores. > > 1 or 2 fast cores is plenty for what you're doing. But the drive > array and how it's configured etc are very important. There's a huge > difference between 10 2TB 7200RPM SATA drives in a software RAID-5 and > 36 500G 15kRPM SAS drives in a RAID-10 (SW or HW would both be ok for > data warehouse.) > >> I do not know much about Postgres, but I am very eager to learn and >> see if I can use it for my purposes more effectively than MySQL. >> I cannot shell out $47,000 per CPU for Oracle for this project. >> To be more specific, the batch queries that I would do, I hope, > > Hopefully if needs be you can spend some small percentage of that for > a fast IO subsystem is needed. > >> would either use small JOINS of a small dataset to a large dataset, or >> just SELECTS from one big table. >> So... Can Postgres support a 5-10 TB database with the use pattern >> stated above? > > I use it on a ~3TB DB and it works well enough. Fast IO is the key > here. Lots of drives in RAID-10 or HW RAID-6 if you don't do a lot of > random writing. > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance > -- ------------ pasman -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
