| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?") |
| Date: | 2003-04-19 04:21:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20030419122009.D37335-100000@houston.familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Instead of tables and their indexes being on the same platter, you'd
> > be able to put them on separate platters. Sounds like it would likely
> > yield a performance gain to me...
>
> That has *nothing* to do with whether we name files after tables or not.
> As Andrew pointed out, you don't really want people munging file
> locations by hand anyway; until we have a proper tablespace
> implementation, it's going to be tedious and error-prone no matter what.
Just so people are aware, I'm getting Jim Buttfuoco's tablespaces patch
from him again, and getting it up to CVS. I'll then see what needs to be
done to it such that it would be accepted...
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-04-19 05:21:57 | Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?") |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-19 02:53:37 | There are advantages to having an odd name |