Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:59:14 -0500
From: Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1@burntmail.com>
Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
In-reply-to: <E1H0HFH-0004cw-6E@elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
To: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Message-id: <45A1CFA2.7020901@burntmail.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <45935A49.6080602@burntmail.com>
	<E1H0HFH-0004cw-6E@elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061230)

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