From: Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
To: Rick Schumeyer <rschumeyer@ieee.org>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: two disks - best way to use them?
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:05:30 -0500
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.0.20051202145746.01dc7b68@earthlink.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00fb01c5f772$59471410$0200a8c0@dell8200>
References: <00fb01c5f772$59471410$0200a8c0@dell8200>
At 01:58 PM 12/2/2005, Rick Schumeyer wrote:
>I installed another drive in my linux pc in an attempt to improve performance
>on a large COPY to a table with a geometry index.
>
>Based on previous discussion, it seems there are three things
>competing for the hard drive:
>
>1) the input data file
>2) the pg table
>3) the WAL
>
>What is the best way to distribute these among two drives? From
>Tom's comments
>I would think that the pg table and the WAL should be
>separate. Does it matter where the input data is?
Best is to have 3 HD or HD sets, one for each of the above.
With only 2, and assuming the input file is too large to fit
completely into RAM at once, I'd test to see whether:
a= input on one + pg table & WAL on the other, or
b= WAL on one + pg table & input file on the other
is best.
If the input file can be made 100% RAM resident, then use
c= pg table on one + WAL and input file on the other.
The big goal here is to minimize HD head seeks.
Ron
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: rjpeace@earthlink.net, rschumeyer@ieee.org
Subject: Re: two disks - best way to use them?
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.0.20051202145746.01dc7b68@earthlink.net>
* 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