On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Kevin
> Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Joseph S <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> wrote:
>>> The question is what I do with my 14 drives. Should I use only 1
>>> pair for indexes or should I use 4 drives? The wal logs are
>>> already slated for an SSD.
>> Why not just spread all your index data over 14 spindles, and do the
>> same with your table data?
> If you have the luxury of being able to test more than one
> configuration with something resembling your actual workload, I would
> strongly recommend including this as one of your configurations.
> Spreading everything over the larger number of spindles might well
> out-perform your most carefully hand-crafted tuning of object
> placement on smaller spindle sets.
The first thing I'd test would be if having a separate mirror set for
pg_xlog helps. If you have a high write environment moving pg_xlog
off of the main data set can help a lot.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Mike Ivanov||Date: 2009-09-01 00:19:01|
|Subject: Re: Number of tables|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2009-08-31 16:31:13|
|Subject: Re: What exactly is postgres doing during INSERT/UPDATE ?|