Indexes will be random write workload, but these won't by synchronous writes
and will be buffered by the raid controller's cache. Assuming you're using
a hardware raid controller that is, and one that doesn't have major
performance problems on your platform. Which brings those questions up ---
what is your RAID card and OS?
For reads, if your shared_buffers is large enough, your heavily used indexes
won't likely go to disk much at all.
A good raid controller will typically help distribute the workload
effectively on a large array.
You probably want a simple 2 disk mirror or 4 disks in raid 10 for your OS +
xlog, and the rest for data + indexes -- with hot spares IF your card
The biggest risk to splitting up data and indexes is that you don't know how
much I/O each needs relative to each other, and if this isn't a relatively
constant ratio you will have one subset busy while the other subset is idle.
Unless you have extensively profiled your disk activity into index and data
subsets and know roughly what the optimal ratio is, its probably going to
cause more problems than it fixes.
Furthermore, if this ratio changes at all, its a maintenance nightmare. How
much each would need in a perfect world is application dependant, so there
can be no general recommendation other than: don't do it.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Christiaan Willemsen <
> Thanks Joshua,
> So what about putting the indexes on a separate array? Since we do a lot of
> inserts indexes are going to be worked on a lot of the time.
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Christiaan Willemsen wrote:
>>> So, what you are basically saying, is that a single mirror is in general
>>> more than enough to facilitate the transaction log.
>> And to answer your question, yes. Transaction logs are written
>> sequentially. You do not need a journaled file system and raid 1 is plenty
>> for most if not all work loads.
>> Joshua D. Drake
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Christiaan Willemsen||Date: 2008-08-21 15:06:13|
|Subject: Re: How to setup disk spindles for best performance|
|Previous:||From: André Volpato||Date: 2008-08-21 14:51:38|
|Subject: Re: Postgres not using array|