From: | Jan Nielsen <jan(dot)sture(dot)nielsen(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Configuration Recommendations |
Date: | 2012-05-17 17:54:47 |
Message-ID: | CANxH4hGn8_v--xx01HVNUHKHeqcSnEGaQrbRHD4oFAb4ifQ7bA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>wrote:
> >>> Is it established practice in the Postgres world to separate indexes
> >>> from tables? I would assume that the reasoning of Richard Foote -
> >>> albeit for Oracle databases - is also true for Postgres:
> >
> >> Yes, it's an established practice. I'd call it something just short of
> >> a best practice though, as it really depends on your situation.
> >
> > What are the benefits?
>
> Disk seeks, basically. Yes, there are a lot of complications regarding
> all the various hardware/OS/PG level cachings, but at the end of the
> day, it's less work to have each drive concentrate on a single area
> (especially as we always require a heap scan at the moment).
>
Thanks for sharing your experience, Greg. What would a PG test-case for
this look like?
Cheers,
Jan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Nielsen | 2012-05-19 15:47:50 | Re: Configuration Recommendations |
Previous Message | Alejandro Carrillo | 2012-05-16 19:01:02 | Re: SSD selection |