On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:59 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ah, but shouldn't a PostgreSQL (or any other database, for that matter) > have its own set of filesystems tuned to the application's I/O patterns? > Sure, there are some people who need to have all of their eggs in one > basket because they can't afford multiple baskets. For them, maybe the > OS defaults are the right choice. But if you're building a > database-specific server, you can optimize the I/O for that.
It's really about a cost / benefits analysis. 20 years ago file systems were slow and buggy and a database could, with little work, outperform them. Nowadays, not so much. I'm guessing that the extra cost and effort of maintaining a file system for pgsql outweighs any real gain you're likely to see performance wise. But I'm sure that if you implemented one that outran XFS / ZFS / ext3 et. al. people would want to hear about it. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
