Re: Table Partitioning in Postgres:

From: "Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
To: "PGSQL General (E-mail)" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Table Partitioning in Postgres:
Date: 2003-02-18 05:34:03
Message-ID: 200302181104.03817.shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tuesday 18 Feb 2003 2:12 am, you wrote:
> 3. Please suggest us some tips for setting up a big database to acheive
> maximum performance ?

well, typically postgresql tries to do things that nobody else in the supply
chain will do. If an OS would take care of mirroring of drives, then
postgresql won't do it for example.

Large tables/database are limited by IO performance. So you need to have
maximum IO throughput available for postgresql to perform best.

I suggest you look at RAID configurations. SCSI if better. If not, then even
software RAID on some OS's like linux should be a good enough option. Of
course, put two disk on two channels but that's about it.

Basically, postgresql won't do anything out of box to support disk
partitioning because that's is an OS's job. symlinking is a poor solution
because say if you recreate an index, postgresql will drop the symlink and
recreate a file instead.

HTH

Shridhar

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> 2003-02-18 05:41:38 Re: [HACKERS] Group by, count, order by and limit
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2003-02-18 05:29:46 Re: Index not used with IS NULL