| From: | Michael Richards <miker(at)scifair(dot)acadiau(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | "G(dot) Anthony Reina" <reina(at)nsi(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [SQL] 2 million+ entries |
| Date: | 1999-08-26 06:28:58 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.10.9908260249250.27017-100000@scifair.acadiau.ca |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, G. Anthony Reina wrote:
> That's fantastic! How much did that set you back? Are there any special
> quirks about using Postgres on a multiple processor, multiple disk
> system?
Oops. To answer your second question. No. None whatsoever. The multi-disk
array is handled by the RAID controller. To the OS it appears to be a
gigantic disk. The RAID controller also has hardware cache so it can do
nifty things like queue a large number of simultaneous requests and
elevator sort them for seek efficiency. The machine also has a large
amount of RAM.
If you really need high performance, I've done nifty things like putting
indexes on different disks. Postgres does not seem to have a problem with
tables which have been physically moved and replace with symbolic links. I
don't know how well it would handle DROP queries, but I'm not in the habit
of dropping 10Gb tables very often.
-Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Haris Susanto | 1999-08-26 08:37:21 | money format |
| Previous Message | Michael Richards | 1999-08-26 05:48:45 | Re: [SQL] 2 million+ entries |