Re: Multiple Spindles ( Was: Re: [HACKERS] [hackers]development suggestion needed )

On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
> >
> > > My site's still in the experimental stage, being used by a couple
> > > dozen folks to record bird distribution data in the Pacific NW, so
> > > I don't personally have real-world data to get a feeling for how
> > > important this might become. Still, Oracle DBA docs talk a lot
> > > about it so in some real-world scenarios being able to distribute
> > > tables and indices on different spindles must pay off.
> >
> > What would it take to break the data/base/<database> directory down? To
> > something like, maybe:
> >
> > data/base/<database>/pg_*
> > /tables/*
> > /indices/*
>
> And put sort and large objects somewhere separate too.

why not? by default, one drive, it would make no difference except for
file layout, but it would *really* give room to expand...

Right now, the udmsearch database contains (approx):

tables:
10528 dict10
5088 dict11
2608 dict12
3232 dict16
64336 dict2
47960 dict3
3096 dict32
65952 dict4
42944 dict5
36384 dict6
34792 dict7
21008 dict8
14120 dict9
31912 url

indexs:
5216 url_id10
2704 url_id11
1408 url_id12
1648 url_id16
36440 url_id2
27128 url_id3
1032 url_id32
37416 url_id4
22600 url_id5
19096 url_id6
18248 url_id7
10880 url_id8
6920 url_id9
6464 word10
3256 word11
1672 word12
2280 word16
26344 word2
21200 word3
2704 word32
28720 word4
21880 word5
19240 word6
18464 word7
11952 word8
8864 word9

if tables/indexs were in different subdirectories, it would be too easy
for me, at some point in the future, to take just the tables directory and
put them on their own dedicated drive, halving the space used on either
drive...

I don't know...IMHO, it sounds like the simplist solution that provides
the multi-spindle benefits ppl are suggesting...