Re: RAID + PostgreSQL?
От | Glen Parker |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RAID + PostgreSQL? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 44A1BD2E.4030203@nwlink.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RAID + PostgreSQL? (Joseph Shraibman <jks@selectacast.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: RAID + PostgreSQL?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
My experience has been that RAID5 + Postgres = counter productive. I've been happier with a 4-way software mirror (Linux). In the past, Postgres has been very drive seek intensive, because of the way index scans were performed. RAID5 does *NOTHING* to help this. Raw disk throughput is essentially a non-issue with Postgres, for the sort of use I'm used to putting it to. My tests have shown *HUGE* improvement in index scans in 8.1. The bitmap index read was one of the most profound improvements I've seen in Postgres yet. I suspect 8.1 would help you quite a lot. -Glen Joseph Shraibman wrote: > I'm running 8.0.8 on a raid 5 over 13 disks, and select performance on a > query that needs to join two large tables is very bad. top shows pg > using 2 to 4 percent cpu. Doing a query on one big table uses 30 to 45 > percent cpu. > > This is RHEL 4 running kernel 2.6.9-22.ELsmp, using an LSI fiber channel > adapter. The disk shelf is one of these: > http://iqstor.com/products/iq1000.htm > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match > >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: