Re: Table Partitioning in Postgres: - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Jonathan Bartlett
Subject Re: Table Partitioning in Postgres:
Date
Msg-id Pine.GSU.4.44.0302190926160.20576-100000@eskimo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Table Partitioning in Postgres:  (Greg Copeland <greg@CopelandConsulting.Net>)
Responses Re: Table Partitioning in Postgres:  (Peter Childs <blue.dragon@blueyonder.co.uk>)
List pgsql-general
> ignorant on the exact device details.  You wouldn't happen to have the
> skinny of those things would ya?  They still being made?

I wish, especially if they are the same price as regular IDE disks and the
Linux kernel supports them!

> Your comments really serve to enforce that IDE stinks and stresses that
> IDE should not be used where serious database performance is needed.
> Needless to say, I think we all already understood that.  ;)

Even more so, it shows the difference between server-clas computer
components and consumer-class computer components.  It's sometimes wearing
on the mind to get the finance guy at my company to understand why a
server with the same "specs" (using the term loosely) as a desktop machine
costs thousands more.  After long discussions extolling the virtues of ECC
RAM, redundant hot-swappable power supplies, SCSI hard disks, RAID-1, and
cooling requirements, I can sometimes convince him that there is a real
reason for the price difference.

Jon

>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
> Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net>
> Copeland Computer Consulting
>


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "luben"
Date:
Subject: please remove me
Next
From: Jonathan Bartlett
Date:
Subject: Re: reliable backup techniques