Re: Hardware HD choice... - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Scott Marlowe
Subject Re: Hardware HD choice...
Date
Msg-id dcc563d10810232241w445606f2wf12af9b7a7997622@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Hardware HD choice...  ("Scott Carey" <scott@richrelevance.com>)
Responses Re: Hardware HD choice...  (Lutz Steinborn <l.steinborn@4c-ag.de>)
List pgsql-performance
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Scott Carey <scott@richrelevance.com> wrote:
> If you are doing batch inserts of data, and want to have reporting queries
> concurrently running, make sure you have the pg_xlogs on a different disk
> than the data/indexes.   2 drives RAID 1 for OS + xlogs works great (and

From the OPs original post I'd guess that one big RAID 10 would serve
him best, but yeah, you need to test to really see.

> Also, if you intend to have lots of data organized by a time field, and
> expect to do the reporting/aggregation queries on subsets of that data
> bounded by time, partitioning by time can have huge benefits.  Partition by
> month, for example, and sequential scans will only flow to the months of
> interest if the queries have the right lmits on the date in the where
> clause.

I second this.  Partitioning in time in past reporting databases
resulted in huge performance improvements for select queries.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Scott Carey"
Date:
Subject: Re: Hardware HD choice...
Next
From: Lutz Steinborn
Date:
Subject: Re: Hardware HD choice...