From: Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1@burntmail.com>
To: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:59:14 -0500
Message-ID: <45A1CFA2.7020901@burntmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1H0HFH-0004cw-6E@elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <45935A49.6080602@burntmail.com>
<E1H0HFH-0004cw-6E@elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Ron wrote:
> C= What file system are you using? Unlike BigDBMS, pg does not have its
> own native one, so you have to choose the one that best suits your
> needs. For update heavy applications involving lots of small updates
> jfs and XFS should both be seriously considered.
Ron, thanks for your ideas. Many of them I've addressed in response to
suggestions from others. I wanted to address this one in particular.
Unfortunately, I do not have the liberty to change file systems on this
old Sun box. All file systems are formatted Sun UFS. BigDBMS is
equally subject to whatever pluses or minuses can be attributed to this
file system, so I'm thinking that this issue would be a wash between the
two.
I've come to the conclusion that configuration changes to PG alone will
not equal the playing field. My next step is to try to determine where
the biggest payback will be regarding changing the implementation.
--
Guy Rouillier
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: guyr-ml1@burntmail.com
Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
In-Reply-To: <45A1CFA2.7020901@burntmail.com>
* 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