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...
>>
>>
>> ************
>>