Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>
Cc: Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1(at)burntmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
Date: 2006-12-29 22:07:47
Message-ID: 20061229220747.GB15429@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Ron wrote:

> C= What file system are you using? Unlike BigDBMS, pg does not have
> its own native one, so you have to choose the one that best suits
> your needs. For update heavy applications involving lots of small
> updates jfs and XFS should both be seriously considered.

Actually it has been suggested that a combination of ext2 (for WAL) and
ext3 (for data, with data journalling disabled) is a good performer.
AFAIK you don't want the overhead of journalling for the WAL partition.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Turner 2006-12-30 03:22:35 Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
Previous Message Russell Smith 2006-12-29 21:25:12 Re: Backup/Restore too slow