Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: RAID or manual split?

From: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
To: Mike Glover <mpg4(at)duluoz(dot)net>
Cc: Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RAID or manual split?
Date: 2004-02-17 22:17:15
Message-ID: 1077056235.18564.207.camel@jester (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
> There are frequent (100-1000/day) queries of both the
> inventory and summary tables using the primary key -- always using the
> index and returning < 10 rows.

For this query frequency I don't think splitting the drives will do much
-- you just need more IO. Look at optimizing the query themselves,
specifically ensuring the useful information is already in memory.

If the 10 rows are recent, you might try using partial indexes with the
last days worth of information instead of an index across the entire
table.

> We're currently getting (barely) acceptable performance from a single
> 15k U160 SCSI disk, but db size and activity are growing quickly. 
> I've got more disks and a battery-backed LSI card on order.

Configure for Raid 10 and you're off.

-- 
Rod Taylor <rbt [at] rbt [dot] ca>

Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/signature.asc

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Christopher BrowneDate: 2004-02-17 22:31:11
Subject: Re: Tables on multiple disk drives
Previous:From: Mike GloverDate: 2004-02-17 21:53:42
Subject: RAID or manual split?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group