On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:59 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
<znmeb@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
especially with the need to support the new 'filesystem' on many different
OS types.
David Lang
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
