It seems to me that a separate partition / tablespace would be a much simpler approach. On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote: > On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 16:49 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Andres Freund escribió: >>> >>> >>>> I find it way much easier to believe such issues exist on a tables in >>>> constrast to indexes. The likelihood to get sequential accesses on an index is >>>> small enough on a big table to make it unlikely to matter much. >>>> >>> >>> Vacuum walks indexes sequentially, for one. >>> >> >> That and index-based range scans were the main two use-cases I was >> concerned would be degraded by interleaving index builds, compared with >> doing them in succession. > > I guess that tweaking file systems to allocate in bigger chunks help > here ? I know that xfs can be tuned in that regard, but how about other > common file systems like ext3 ? > > - > Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com > PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability > Services, Consulting and Training > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
