Re: Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB
От | Shaun Thomas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4E6E31DF.6020407@peak6.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB (Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On 09/11/2011 12:02 PM, Marti Raudsepp wrote: > Which brings me to another important point: don't do lots of small > write transactions, SAVEPOINTs or PL/pgSQL subtransactions. Besides > being inefficient, they introduce a big maintenance burden. I'd like to second this. Before a notable application overhaul, we were handling about 300-million transactions per day (250M of that was over a 6-hour period). To avoid the risk of mid-day vacuum-freeze, we disabled autovacuum and run a nightly vacuum over the entire database. And that was *after* bumping autovacuum_freeze_max_age to 600-million. You do *not* want to screw with that if you don't have to, and a setting of 600M is about 1/3 of the reasonable boundary there. If not for the forced autovacuums, a database with this much traffic would be corrupt in less than a week. We've managed to cut that transaction traffic by 60%, and it greatly improved the database's overall health. -- Shaun Thomas OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 800 | Chicago IL, 60604 312-676-8870 sthomas@peak6.com ______________________________________________ See http://www.peak6.com/email-disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: