On Mar 2, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Francisco Reyes wrote: > da...@lang.hm writes: > >> With sequential scans you may be better off with the large SATA drives as >> they fit more data per track and so give great sequential read rates. > > I lean more towards SAS because of writes. > One common thing we do is create temp tables.. so a typical pass may be: > * sequential scan > * create temp table with subset > * do queries against subset+join to smaller tables. > > I figure the concurrent read/write would be faster on SAS than on SATA. I am > trying to move to having an external enclosure (we have several not in use > or about to become free) so I could separate the read and the write of the > temp tables. >
Concurrent Read/Write performance has far more to do with OS and Filesystem choice and tuning than what type of drive it is. > Lastly, it is likely we are going to do horizontal partitioning (ie master > all data in one machine, replicate and then change our code to read parts of > data from different machine) and I think at that time the better drives will > do better as we have more concurrent queries. > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
