Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Config for mostly-readonly DB? |
---|---|
Author | Ann W. Harrison |
Post date | 2005-02-21T19:23:58Z |
Kjell Rilbe wrote:
going to be a problem. Is there some way to combine values so you have
more - or more complex - tables that can be accessed with a dozen or so
criteria?
"thousands of criteria" problem.
SuperServer, they shouldn't be an issue at all.
don't know the answer for Win2003. A better answer is that larger pages
reduce index depth and that's good for performance.
database slower. V2 absolutely fixes that - 1.5 may also - someone will
chime in.
performance?
Regards,
Ann
> I need to make the selects and "order history" inserts as fast asThat's where I stopped reading. Sorry, but thousands of criteria are
> possible. These will use up to hundreds or even thousands of where
> conditions based on multiple master columns and the single child table
> column. The most common case will probably be 10-100 criteria on 1-3
> columns. Most of the columns are very selective, but not all.
going to be a problem. Is there some way to combine values so you have
more - or more complex - tables that can be accessed with a dozen or so
criteria?
>I'd be tempted to look at classic, but not before getting over the
> How should I configure my DB?
>
> It will be running on a Windows 2003 Server, Pentium 4 without
> hyperthreading, 1 Gbyte RAM, single 7200 rpm harddisk. The only other
> application is IIS + an ISAPI + my server application. These consume no
> more than 100 Mbyte RAM.
"thousands of criteria" problem.
>No, not particularly. Page locks are really short, and if you're using
> Page size 16384? Small pages are good with a lot of concurrent
> transactions to avoid having to wait for locks
SuperServer, they shouldn't be an issue at all.
> while large pages areThat depends on the balance between page size and disk write size and I
> good to improve read/write performance when locks aren't a problem.
don't know the answer for Win2003. A better answer is that larger pages
reduce index depth and that's good for performance.
> Correct? (My DB operations are currently completely serialized.)That's nice. Why?
>Yes. There's a knee at around 10K cache pages where more pages make the
> Page buffers? Is this the same as the firebird.conf setting
> "DefaultDbCachePages"?
database slower. V2 absolutely fixes that - 1.5 may also - someone will
chime in.
> If Page buffers = 0 in the DB, will it use theRight.
> DefaultDbCachePages setting instead?
>What are you going to sort, how big is it, and how important is sort
> SortMemBlockSize? SortMemUpperLimit?
performance?
Regards,
Ann
>