On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 11:49 AM farjad.farid < farjad.fa...@checknetworks.com> wrote:
> With this kind of design requirements it is worth considering hardware > "failure & recovery". Even SSDs can and do fail. > > It is not just a matter of just speed. RAID disks of some kind, depending > on the budget is worth the effort. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > Sent: 2019 July 26 22:39 > To: Arya F <arya6...@gmail.com> > Cc: Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>; Ron <ronljohnso...@gmail.com>; > pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org > Subject: Re: Hardware for writing/updating 12,000,000 rows per hour > > On 2019-Jul-26, Arya F wrote: > > > I think I can modify my application to do a batch update. Right now > > the server has an HDD and it really can't handle a lot of updates and > > inserts per second. Would changing to a regular SSD be able to easily > > do 3000 updates per second? > > That's a pretty hard question in isolation -- you need to consider how > many indexes are there to update, whether the updated columns are indexed > or not, what the datatypes are, how much locality of access you'll have ... > I'm probably missing some other important factors. (Of course, you'll have > to tune various PG server settings to find your sweet spot.) > > I suggest that should be measuring instead of trying to guess. A > reasonably cheap way is to rent a machine somewhere with the type of > hardware you think you'll need, and run your workload there for long > enough, making sure to carefully observe important metrics such as table > size, accumulated bloat, checkpoint regime, overall I/O activity, and so on. > > -- > Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services > > > Hi Farjad I was thinking of having physical or logical replication. Or is having RAID a must if I don't want to lose data?
