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

Re: Hardware HD choice...

From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Scott Carey" <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>
Cc: Lionel <lionel(at)art-informatique(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hardware HD choice...
Date: 2008-10-24 05:41:49
Message-ID: dcc563d10810232241w445606f2wf12af9b7a7997622@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> wrote:
> If you are doing batch inserts of data, and want to have reporting queries
> concurrently running, make sure you have the pg_xlogs on a different disk
> than the data/indexes.   2 drives RAID 1 for OS + xlogs works great (and

From the OPs original post I'd guess that one big RAID 10 would serve
him best, but yeah, you need to test to really see.

> Also, if you intend to have lots of data organized by a time field, and
> expect to do the reporting/aggregation queries on subsets of that data
> bounded by time, partitioning by time can have huge benefits.  Partition by
> month, for example, and sequential scans will only flow to the months of
> interest if the queries have the right lmits on the date in the where
> clause.

I second this.  Partitioning in time in past reporting databases
resulted in huge performance improvements for select queries.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Lutz SteinbornDate: 2008-10-24 07:26:45
Subject: Re: Hardware HD choice...
Previous:From: Scott CareyDate: 2008-10-24 02:48:34
Subject: Re: Hardware HD choice...

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