Re: Performance for relative large DB

On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:25:02PM -0700, tobbe wrote:
> Hi Chris.
>
> Thanks for the answer.
> Sorry that i was a bit unclear.
>
> 1) We update around 20.000 posts per night.
Doesn't seem like a lot at all.

> 2) What i meant was that we suspect that the DBMS called PervasiveSQL
> that we are using today is much to small. That's why we're looking for
> alternatives.

Just so no one gets confused, PervasiveSQL is our Btrieve-based
database; it has nothing to do with Pervasive Posgres or PosgreSQL.
Also, feel free to contact me off-list if you'd like our help with this.

> Today we base our solution much on using querry-specific tables created
> at night, so instead of doing querrys direct on the "post" table (with
> 4-6M rows) at daytime, we have the data pre-aligned in several much
> smaller tables. This is just to make the current DBMS coop with our
> amount of data.
>
> What I am particulary interested in is if we can expect to run all our
> select querrys directly from the "post" table with PostgreSQL.

Probably, depending on what those queries are, what hardware you have
and how the table is laid out. Unless you've got a really high query
load I suspect you could handle this on some fairly mundane hardware...

> 3) How well does postgres work with load balancing environments. Is it
> built-in?

As Chris said, there is no built-in solution. PGCluster
(http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgcluster/) is a possible solution should
you need clustering/load balancing, but as I mentioned I suspect you
should be ok without it.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software        http://pervasive.com        512-569-9461