Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
Date
Msg-id 20061229220747.GB15429@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS  (Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>)
Responses Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS  (Jeff Frost <jeff@frostconsultingllc.com>)
Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS  (Geoffrey <esoteric@3times25.net>)
List pgsql-performance
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.

Actually it has been suggested that a combination of ext2 (for WAL) and
ext3 (for data, with data journalling disabled) is a good performer.
AFAIK you don't want the overhead of journalling for the WAL partition.

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Russell Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Backup/Restore too slow
Next
From: Jeff Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS