From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Parallel Vacuum
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:46:15 -0400
Message-ID: <20070322184613.GJ11402@mathom.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200703221924.39278.dimitrik.fr@gmail.com>
References: <200703221435.54408.dimitrik.fr@gmail.com>
<200703221655.03068.dimitrik.fr@gmail.com>
<20070322171007.GH11402@mathom.us>
<200703221924.39278.dimitrik.fr@gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 07:24:38PM +0100, Dimitri wrote:
>you're right until you're using a single disk :)
>Now, imagine you have more disks
I do have more disks. I maximize the I/O performance by dedicating
different sets of disks to different tables. YMMV. I do suggest watching
your I/O rates and wallclock time if you try this to see if your
aggregate is actually substantially faster than the single case. (I
assume that you haven't yet gotten far enough to actually do performance
testing.) You may also want to look into tuning your sequential I/O
performance.
Mike Stone
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: mstone+postgres@mathom.us
Subject: Re: Parallel Vacuum
In-Reply-To: <20070322184613.GJ11402@mathom.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox