> "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM> writes:
> > The more general and "standard" way to go are TABLESPACEs.
> > But probably proposed feature will be compatible with
> > tablespaces, when we'll got them:
>
> Will it be? I'm afraid of creating a backwards-compatibility
> problem for ourselves when it comes time to implement tablespaces.
>
> At the very least I'd like to see some information demonstrating
> how much benefit there is to this proposed patch, before we
> consider whether to adopt it. If there's a significant performance
> benefit to splitting a PG database along the table-vs-index divide,
> then it's interesting as a short-term improvement ... but Jim didn't
> even make that assertion, let alone provide evidence to back it up.
If that is your only concern, I can tell you for sure that if the
locations are on different drives, there will be a performance benefit.
It is standard database practice to put indexes on different drives than
data. In fact, sometimes you want to put two tables that are frequently
joined on separate drives.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026