Le mardi 21 juin 2011 à 01:49 -0400, CSS a écrit : > I couldn't find much information in the archives on this -- perhaps this > is a bit of a specialized need, but I was hoping for some input from > some experienced postgres admins. > Hi, I am not an experienced postgres admin, but I am an experienced reader of this list, and from what I gather, the figures you quote are small enough that you probably can work out of the box without doing anything, unless DNS servers have special needs I am not aware of. > I'm moving some DNS servers from djbdns/tinydns to PowerDNS. While it > supports many backends, postgresql seems like the best choice for us > since it's what is used elsewhere (in larger configurations). As a bit > of background, PowerDNS does not query the db for every incoming DNS > query, it caches at various levels (both a "packet cache" and a db > cache), so it's database needs are quite modest. > > Some raw numbers: We're only looking at a total of about six tables in > one db. In total there are going to be well under 10,000 records in ALL > tables. That might increase to at most 100,000 in the next few years. Unless those DNS records are large (I guess not), the db should reside entirely in memory at least at the beginning. I am guessing also, but you should validate it, that your tables, with 1 500 records on average, probably don't even need an index, as the engine normally does a sequential scans over small datasets. -- Vincent Veyron http://marica.fr/ Logiciel de gestion des sinistres et des contentieux pour le service juridique -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
