Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)

From: Alan Hodgson <ahodgson(at)simkin(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
Date: 2006-09-18 21:01:03
Message-ID: 200609181401.03679@hal.medialogik.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Monday 18 September 2006 13:56, "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> just another fyi, if you have a really big database, you can forget
> about doing pg_dump for backups (unless you really don't care about
> being x day or days behind)...you simply have to due some type of
> replication/failover strategy. i would start with pitr.

And, of course, the biggest problem of all; upgrades.

--
Eat right. Exercise regularly. Die anyway.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-09-18 22:40:30 Re: Vacuums on large busy databases
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2006-09-18 20:56:22 Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)