It seems to me that a separate partition / tablespace would be a much simpler approach.
On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 16:49 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Andres Freund escribió:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I find it way much easier to believe such issues exist on a tables in
>>>> constrast to indexes. The likelihood to get sequential accesses on an index is
>>>> small enough on a big table to make it unlikely to matter much.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Vacuum walks indexes sequentially, for one.
>>>
>>
>> That and index-based range scans were the main two use-cases I was
>> concerned would be degraded by interleaving index builds, compared with
>> doing them in succession.
>
> I guess that tweaking file systems to allocate in bigger chunks help
> here ? I know that xfs can be tuned in that regard, but how about other
> common file systems like ext3 ?
>
> -
> Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
> PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability
> Services, Consulting and Training
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance