Yes, but what if it's just your data that's a problem, and not so much the
index space.  Then you are more likely to want to split the table data than
split tables from index data.

MikeA


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: The Hermit Hacker [mailto:scrappy@hub.org]
>> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 6:59 AM
>> To: Bruce Momjian
>> Cc: Don Baccus; Tom Lane; Xun Cheng; pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
>> Subject: Re: Multiple Spindles ( Was: Re: [HACKERS] 
>> [hackers]development
>> suggestion needed )
>> 
>> 
>> 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 dict16
>>  64336 dict2
>>  47960 dict3
>>   3096 dict32
>>  65952 dict4
>>  42944 dict5
>>  36384 dict6
>>  34792 dict7
>>  21008 dict8
>>  14120 dict9
>>  31912 url
>> 
>> indexs:
>>   5216 url_id10
>>   2704 url_id11
>>   1408 url_id12
>>   1648 url_id16
>>  36440 url_id2
>>  27128 url_id3
>>   1032 url_id32
>>  37416 url_id4
>>  22600 url_id5
>>  19096 url_id6
>>  18248 url_id7
>>  10880 url_id8
>>   6920 url_id9
>>   6464 word10
>>   3256 word11
>>   1672 word12
>>   2280 word16
>>  26344 word2
>>  21200 word3
>>   2704 word32
>>  28720 word4
>>  21880 word5
>>  19240 word6
>>  18464 word7
>>  11952 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...
>> 
>> 
>> ************
>> 

Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:43:42 +0200
"Ansley, Michael" <Michael.Ansley@intec.co.za>
RE: Multiple Spindles ( Was: Re: [HACKERS] [hackers]development  
	suggestion needed )