| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Francisco Reyes <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Chris <dmagick(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Inserts optimization? |
| Date: | 2006-04-14 05:59:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20060414055923.GX49405@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 02:59:23PM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote:
> In RAID 10 would it matter that WALL is in the same RAID set?
> Would it be better:
> 4 disks in RAID10 Data
> 2 disks RAID 1 WALL
> 2 hot spares
Well, benchmark it with your app and find out, but generally speaking
unless your database is mostly read you'll see a pretty big benefit to
seperating WAL from table/index data.
--
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Terje Elde | 2006-04-14 06:05:39 | Re: Blocks read for index scans |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-14 03:15:17 | Re: pg 7.4.x - pg_restore impossibly slow |