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

Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>
Cc: Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1(at)burntmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
Date: 2006-12-29 22:07:47
Message-ID: 20061229220747.GB15429@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Ron wrote:

> C= What file system are you using?  Unlike BigDBMS, pg does not have 
> its own native one, so you have to choose the one that best suits 
> your needs.  For update heavy applications involving lots of small 
> updates jfs and XFS should both be seriously considered.

Actually it has been suggested that a combination of ext2 (for WAL) and
ext3 (for data, with data journalling disabled) is a good performer.
AFAIK you don't want the overhead of journalling for the WAL partition.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Alex TurnerDate: 2006-12-30 03:22:35
Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
Previous:From: Russell SmithDate: 2006-12-29 21:25:12
Subject: Re: Backup/Restore too slow

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