Re: Unexpected pgbench result - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Shaun Thomas
Subject Re: Unexpected pgbench result
Date
Msg-id 52B44FD8.2030105@optionshouse.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Unexpected pgbench result  (Dave Johansen <davejohansen@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Unexpected pgbench result  (Dave Johansen <davejohansen@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On 12/19/2013 04:06 PM, Dave Johansen wrote:

> Right now, we're running a RAID 1 for pg_clog, pg_log and pg_xlog and
> then a RAID 1+0 with 12 disks for the data. Would there be any benefit
> to running a separate RAID 1+0 with a tablespace for the indexes?

Not really. PostgreSQL doesn't currently support parallel backend
fetches, aggregation, or really anything. It's looking like 9.4 will get
us a lot closer to that, but right now, everything is serial.

Serial or not, separate backends will have separate read concerns, and
PostgreSQL 9.2 and above *do* support index only scans. So
theoretically, you might actually see some benefit there. If it were me
and I had spindles available, I would just increase the overall size of
the pool. It's a lot easier than managing multiple tablespaces.

--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-676-8870
sthomas@optionshouse.com

______________________________________________

See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Marc Cousin
Date:
Subject: Re: query plan not optimal
Next
From: Shaun Thomas
Date:
Subject: Re: Regarding Hardware Tuning