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 dict1664336 dict247960 dict3 3096 dict3265952 dict442944 dict536384
dict634792dict721008 dict814120 dict931912 url
indexs: 5216 url_id10 2704 url_id11 1408 url_id12 1648 url_id1636440 url_id227128 url_id3 1032 url_id3237416
url_id422600url_id519096 url_id618248 url_id710880 url_id8 6920 url_id9 6464 word10 3256 word11 1672 word12 2280
word1626344word221200 word3 2704 word3228720 word421880 word519240 word618464 word711952 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...