Re: High Frequency Inserts to Postgres Database vs Writing to a File
От | Jay Manni |
---|---|
Тема | Re: High Frequency Inserts to Postgres Database vs Writing to a File |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 60B0F2124D07B942988329B5B7CA393D01E5B94187@mail2.FireEye.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: High Frequency Inserts to Postgres Database vs Writing to a File (Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Thanks to all for the responses. Based on all the recommendations, I am going to try a batched commit approach; along withdata purging policies so that the data storage does not grow beyond certain thresholds. - J -----Original Message----- From: Craig Ringer [mailto:craig@postnewspapers.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 5:12 PM To: Merlin Moncure Cc: Jay Manni; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] High Frequency Inserts to Postgres Database vs Writing to a File Merlin Moncure wrote: > Postgres can handle multiple 1000 insert/sec but your hardware most > likely can't handle multiple 1000 transaction/sec if fsync is on. commit_delay or async commit should help a lot there. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/wal-async-commit.html http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/runtime-config-wal.html Please do *not* turn fsync off unless you want to lose your data. > If you are bulk inserting 1000+ records/sec all day long, make sure > you have provisioned enough storage for this (that's 86M records/day), plus any index storage, room for dead tuples if you ever issue UPDATEs, etc. -- Craig Ringer -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: