the entire PostgreSQL community for everything you are, do and have built.
Without going into an exorbitant amount of detail, suffice it to say that in
the context of my current work, you have truly been a Godsend.
I have just one immediate question that I've been unable to ascertain a
solid answer to myself by reviewing the documentation and/or looking up the
prior posts. I suppose it might boil down to a matter of informed (and
perhaps differing) opinions, whereas for my part, the most effective way for
me to decide this on my own would be to flip a coin. In other words, I Just
Don't Know - and the overhead of my just-trying-it-out-to-see-what-happens
would be more than I'd be able to afford.
Right now I'm running (9.1) across three physical disks: One for table
data, one for indexes and one for WAL (in addition to the OS disk of
course). I realize that these all should be on RAID 10s and not single
disks, and that's indeed the plan; just not a viable option for me right now
- maybe in a couple weeks... Anyway, after an exorbitant amount of trial /
error / tweak / dumb mistake / tweak again / retry, I'm confident that my
configuration is as solid as it can be, for now - and so at present, I'm
looking just for any available avenue to improve disk I/O - seeks and reads,
specifically; writes are doing fine.
SO: What I'm looking for is just kind of a snap consensus here among the
readership and experts: If you were in the same position, would you either:
A) Leave the disk setup as-is, with indexes on one drive and tables on
B) Combine the two separate drives into a single RAID 0, put both indexes
and table data on that RAID, and run from there?
(the WAL drive I'll be leaving as completely separate and standalone, of
With appreciation in advance for your feedback and time,
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/index-and-data-tablespaces-on-two-separate-drives-or-one-RAID-0-tp5715724.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.