Thread: RE: Multiple Spindles ( Was: Re: [HACKERS] [hackers]development suggestion needed )
RE: Multiple Spindles ( Was: Re: [HACKERS] [hackers]development suggestion needed )
From
"Ansley, Michael"
Date:
Yes, but what if it's just your data that's a problem, and not so much the index space. Then you are more likely to want to split the table data than split tables from index data. MikeA >> -----Original Message----- >> From: The Hermit Hacker [mailto:scrappy@hub.org] >> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 6:59 AM >> To: Bruce Momjian >> Cc: Don Baccus; Tom Lane; Xun Cheng; pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org >> Subject: Re: Multiple Spindles ( Was: Re: [HACKERS] >> [hackers]development >> suggestion needed ) >> >> >> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >> > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Don Baccus wrote: >> > > >> > > > My site's still in the experimental stage, being used >> by a couple >> > > > dozen folks to record bird distribution data in the >> Pacific NW, so >> > > > I don't personally have real-world data to get a >> feeling for how >> > > > important this might become. Still, Oracle DBA docs talk a lot >> > > > about it so in some real-world scenarios being able to >> distribute >> > > > tables and indices on different spindles must pay off. >> > > >> > > What would it take to break the data/base/<database> >> directory down? To >> > > something like, maybe: >> > > >> > > data/base/<database>/pg_* >> > > /tables/* >> > > /indices/* >> > >> > And put sort and large objects somewhere separate too. >> >> why not? by default, one drive, it would make no difference >> except for >> file layout, but it would *really* give room to expand... >> >> Right now, the udmsearch database contains (approx): >> >> tables: >> 10528 dict10 >> 5088 dict11 >> 2608 dict12 >> 3232 dict16 >> 64336 dict2 >> 47960 dict3 >> 3096 dict32 >> 65952 dict4 >> 42944 dict5 >> 36384 dict6 >> 34792 dict7 >> 21008 dict8 >> 14120 dict9 >> 31912 url >> >> indexs: >> 5216 url_id10 >> 2704 url_id11 >> 1408 url_id12 >> 1648 url_id16 >> 36440 url_id2 >> 27128 url_id3 >> 1032 url_id32 >> 37416 url_id4 >> 22600 url_id5 >> 19096 url_id6 >> 18248 url_id7 >> 10880 url_id8 >> 6920 url_id9 >> 6464 word10 >> 3256 word11 >> 1672 word12 >> 2280 word16 >> 26344 word2 >> 21200 word3 >> 2704 word32 >> 28720 word4 >> 21880 word5 >> 19240 word6 >> 18464 word7 >> 11952 word8 >> 8864 word9 >> >> if tables/indexs were in different subdirectories, it would >> be too easy >> for me, at some point in the future, to take just the tables >> directory and >> put them on their own dedicated drive, halving the space >> used on either >> drive... >> >> I don't know...IMHO, it sounds like the simplist solution >> that provides >> the multi-spindle benefits ppl are suggesting... >> >> >> ************ >>