Actually, it is common for "obvious" facts to be entirely incorrect.
-> ext3 wouldn't "die" with a file of that size; it supports files up
to about 2TB in size, and 8GB shouldn't be an "uncomfortable" size
-> PostgreSQL normally switches to a new file at 1GB intervals, so
that no file is ev
From what I have gathered on the performance list, JFS seemed to be the
best overall choice, but I'd say check the archives of
pgsql-performance because so many of your I/O needs depends on what
you're going to be doing with your database.
-tfo
--
Thomas F. O'Connell
Co-Founder, Information Arc
After a long battle with technology, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joseph M. Day"), an
earthling, wrote:
> Can anyone recemmend a filesystem to use for Postgres. I currently
> have one table that has 80 mil rows, and will take roughly 8GB of
> space without indexing. Obviously EXT3 will die for a file size
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 12:55:52AM -0600, Joseph M. Day wrote:
> > From the "Database Physical Storage" chapter in the 8.0 documentation:
> >
> > When a table or index exceeds 1Gb, it is divided into gigabyte-sized
> > segments. The first segment's file name is the same as the
> > filenode; sub
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 12:29:13AM -0600, Joseph M. Day wrote:
> Can anyone recemmend a filesystem to use for Postgres. I currently have
> one table that has 80 mil rows, and will take roughly 8GB of space
> without indexing. Obviously EXT3 will die for a file size this large.
>From the "Database
Title: Message
Can anyone recemmend
a filesystem to use for Postgres. I currently have one table that has 80 mil
rows, and will take roughly 8GB of space without indexing. Obviously EXT3 will
die for a file size this large. Any suggestions with be
helpful.
Thanks,
Joe,
--
