On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 01:10:39AM -0600, Koth, Christian (DWBI) wrote:
For what reason are you planning to use a journaling FS? I think using WAL,
fsyncing every transaction and using a journaling FS is tautologous. And if you
have problems using EXT2 you can just add the journal later without loosing
data.
My tests using EXT2 showed a performance boost up to 50% on INSERTs.
The requirements for the WAL filesystem and for the data filesystem are
different. Having the WAL on a small ext2 filesystem makes sense and is
good for performance. Having the data on a huge ext2 filesystem is a
horrible idea, because you'll fsck forever if there's a crash, and
because ext2 isn't a great performer for large filesystems. I typically
have a couple-gig ext2 WAL paired with a couple of couple-hundred-gig
xfs data & index partitions. Note that the guarantees of a journaling fs
like xfs have nothing to do with the kind of journaling done by the WAL,
and each has its place on a postgres system.
Mike Stone
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
