Received: from snoopy.mohawksoft.com ([216.41.12.227])
	by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5DCU8E33958
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:30:08 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from markw@mohawksoft.com)
Received: from mohawksoft.com (IDENT:markw@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by snoopy.mohawksoft.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f5DCZG820072
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:35:16 -0400
Message-ID: <3B275E04.31F8ECD4@mohawksoft.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:35:16 -0400
From: mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.5-mohawk-smp i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Indexing on a separate volume
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archive-Number: 200106/377
X-Sequence-Number: 9996

I was thinking this morning, how much work would it be to change the directory
structure of Postgres. 

from:

postgres/
	base/
		db1/
		db2/
		db3/
		...
	pg_xlog/

to

postgres/
	base/
		db1/
		db2/
		db3/
		...
	index/
		db1/
		db2/
		db3/
		...
	pg_xlog/

Or
postgres/
	base/
		db1/
			data/
			index/
		db2/
			data/
			index/
		db3/
			data/
			index/
		...
	pg_xlog/

This sort of arangment would allow putting indexes on separate volumes. If it
is a stupid idea, with little value or a huge amount of work, I take it back.
Seriously, however, does it make any sense?