Re: Feedback on auto-pruning approach

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Mark Liberman <mliberman(at)mixedsignals(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Feedback on auto-pruning approach
Date: 2006-03-28 18:19:03
Message-ID: 20060328181903.GU75181@pervasive.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 06:32:42PM -0800, Mark Liberman wrote:
> So, I have finally complete this auto-pruning solution. It has proven effective in keeping the size of the db under whichever threshold I set in an unattended fashion.
>
> I have one final question. If my goal is to maximize the amount of historical data that we can keep - e.g. set the db size limit to be as large as possible - how much disk space should I reserve for standard Postgres operations - e.g. sort space, WAL, etc.. I'm sure this depends a bit on our configuration, etc.. but if someone can point me in the direction as to what factors I should consider, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Probably your biggest issue will be temporary files created by temporary
tables, sorts that spill to disk, etc.

What I'm confused by is the concern about disk space in the first place.
Drives are very cheap, people are normally much more concerned about IO
bandwidth.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Broersma Jr 2006-03-28 18:21:28 Re: PostgreSQl newbie! -PLease help, pgAdmin3 on Debian!
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-03-28 18:11:10 Re: WAL file naming convention