From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Scott Carey" <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
Cc: | Lionel <lionel(at)art-informatique(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Hardware HD choice... |
Date: | 2008-10-24 05:41:49 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10810232241w445606f2wf12af9b7a7997622@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> wrote:
> If you are doing batch inserts of data, and want to have reporting queries
> concurrently running, make sure you have the pg_xlogs on a different disk
> than the data/indexes. 2 drives RAID 1 for OS + xlogs works great (and
From the OPs original post I'd guess that one big RAID 10 would serve
him best, but yeah, you need to test to really see.
> Also, if you intend to have lots of data organized by a time field, and
> expect to do the reporting/aggregation queries on subsets of that data
> bounded by time, partitioning by time can have huge benefits. Partition by
> month, for example, and sequential scans will only flow to the months of
> interest if the queries have the right lmits on the date in the where
> clause.
I second this. Partitioning in time in past reporting databases
resulted in huge performance improvements for select queries.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lutz Steinborn | 2008-10-24 07:26:45 | Re: Hardware HD choice... |
Previous Message | Scott Carey | 2008-10-24 02:48:34 | Re: Hardware HD choice... |