3 ms·
I ran a 4000qps postgres database set to use no more than 640KB of RAM (its in the configs). The DBA was having fun with my silly idea until Slow-Query takes 1
by genewitch 2y ago
I ran a 4000qps postgres database set to use no more than 640KB of RAM (its in the configs).
The DBA was having fun with my silly idea until Slow-Query takes 10 seconds and we flipped back over to the production systems with much more allowed memory for postgres.
My purpose was to show that Linux itself is pretty fast at caching and paging, even if Postgres was hamstrung. The db actually ran fine except for the slow queries, and we probably could have cleaned them up, too. But I proved my point.
DB was ~300GB, metal had 512GB RAM. This was in 2012.
- dano 2y agoYep. I converted a business from to Postgres in 2004 and never looked back. Stable, reliable, no surprises. Postgres is the answer until proven otherwise.
- sgarland 2y agoNo offense, but 4000 QPS is not large. I ran a 100K+ QPS MySQL instance with 384 GiB of RAM. This is all subjective, of course, but I wouldn’t call 100K QPS large, either. It’s getting on the high end of what you might reasonably want to handle without horizontal scaling, but it’s still not “large.”