Richard Huxton wrote:

On Thursday 15 April 2004 08:10, Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:

The problem is that i want to know if i need a Hardware upgrade
at the moment.

Eg i have another table rfis which contains ~ .6 million records.

SELECT count(*) from rfis where sender_uid > 0;

Time: 117560.635 ms

Which is approximate 4804 records per second. Is it an acceptable
performance  on the hardware below:

DISKS: ultra160 , 10 K , 18 GB
Processor: 2* 2.0 Ghz Xeon

Hmm - doesn't seem good, does it? If you run it again, is it much faster (since the data should be cached then)? What does "vmstat 10" show while you're running the query?

One thing you should have done is read the performance tuning guide at:
The default values are very conservative, and you will need to change them.


Thanks for the interest . my config are not the default ones.
i was running iostat while running the query. Looks like one
of the disks doesnt' go past a read performance of 20 ,000 KBytes/sec

while the other disk it goes as high as 40,000 . What i am ding currently is
loading the table in both the disks and compare the table scan speeds.

The performance is definitely better in the newly loaded table in the other
disk . the load in server is 13 because i am simultaneously re-loading the data
in other table.

rt2=# SELECT count(*) from rfis where sender_uid > 0; +--------+ | count | +--------+ | 564870 | +--------+ (1 row)

Time: 10288.359 ms


shall post the comparitive details under normal load soon

regds mallah.

What kind of upgrades shoud be put on the server for it to become
reasonable fast.

If you've only got one disk, then a second disk for OS/logging. Difficult to say more without knowing numbers of users/activity etc.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
   (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Reply via email to