[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       pgsql-performance
Subject:    Re: [PERFORM] Postgres 8.x on Windows Server in production
From:       Grzegorz_Jaśkiewicz <gryzman () gmail ! com>
Date:       2009-04-13 18:47:18
Message-ID: 2f4958ff0904131147s10a1e653v54ca2a5eb8d55f3d () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

2009/4/13 Ognjen Blagojevic <ognjen@etf.bg.ac.yu>:
> It is a student database for the college which is a client of ours. The size
> of the database should be around 1GB, half being binary data (images). Not
> more than 100 users at the time will be working with the application.

nice, if you want to store pics, I suggest filesystem - with some nice
schema to do it.
The way I do it, is using md5 of pics/other data, and three level of
directories to lead you to the right file on disc.
It is dead easy to implement, and much faster than bytea in DB. (at
least on linux, I wouldn't hold my breath so much for ntfs, but you
never know).

100 connections is quite a bit, so you need a bit of memory. It also
depends on the actual queries, and schema.
If you have any questions about that, and performance - we are here to help.

> I don't worry about the performance, but more about the maintenance under
> Windows. What file system to use? How to schedule vacuuming and backup? Are
> there any windows services that should be turned off? Those questions come
> to my mind when I consider new OS for the RDBMS.

just like scott said,
Make sure to either turn off anti-virus, or tell it to stay away from
postgresql. (which leaves your machine quite vulnerable, so make sure
to secure it well).

hth

-- 
GJ

-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]