X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921F89DC865 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:25:24 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 61130-03 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:25:26 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.203]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7680D9DC843 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:25:22 -0400 (AST) Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 13so977216nzn for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 03:25:25 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=FbSaHH4rZRTcztd9tQf2REGyD0N0KMqE9FMYYtKGkOyYnPiw5fFhZTfg0XW59ERjDZ9Q5n8f3B3D8JuF/85IfVoxDrWU6AY4k+3IwERekyxVdD9zJVMGvsYw5ZrH823IwTcYAP0Px3VFaq0BruYaG98W3XMvNnQnPCkQPtwMSPQ= Received: by 10.65.197.1 with SMTP id z1mr1183950qbp; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 03:25:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.254.12 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 03:25:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <9e4684ce0601290325p4f284c57ndeaae13e6ce58fd7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:25:23 +0100 From: hubert depesz lubaczewski To: Luke Lonergan Subject: Re: Huge Data sets, simple queries Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <007101c623a9$82207c10$0200a8c0@videobox> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.206 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.206] X-Spam-Score: 0.206 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/464 X-Sequence-Number: 16942 On 1/28/06, Luke Lonergan wrote: > You should check your disk performance, I would > expect you'll find it lacking, partly because you are running RAID10, but > mostly because I expect you are using a hardware RAID adapter. hmm .. do i understand correctly that you're suggesting that using raid 10 and/or hardware raid adapter might hurt disc subsystem performance? could you elaborate on the reasons, please? it's not that i'm against the idea - i'm just curious as this is very "against-common-sense". and i always found it interesting when somebody states something that uncommon... best regards depesz