Re: Unexpected pgbench result - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Dave Johansen
Subject Re: Unexpected pgbench result
Date
Msg-id CAAcYxUdBAiqPeoTJNUm3A1kEhZcMDfUXKiacD5o14iZ6tko7vg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Unexpected pgbench result  (Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com>)
Responses Re: Unexpected pgbench result
List pgsql-performance
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com> wrote:
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.

Ok, that makes sense. Is there a benefit to having the WAL and logs on the separate RAID 1? Or is just having them be part of the larger RAID 1+0 just as good?

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Shaun Thomas
Date:
Subject: Re: slow query - will CLUSTER help?
Next
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: Unexpected pgbench result