2011/9/11 pasman pasmański <pasman.p@xxxxxxxxx>
For 10 TB table and 3hours, disks should have a transfer about 1GB/s (seqscan).
I have 6 Gb/s disk drives, so it should be not too far, maybe 5 hours for a seqscan.
i
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
