-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > Is it established practice in the Postgres world to separate indexes > from tables? I would assume that the reasoning of Richard Foote - > albeit for Oracle databases - is also true for Postgres: Yes, it's an established practice. I'd call it something just short of a best practice though, as it really depends on your situation. I'd take those articles with a grain of salt, as they are very Oracle-specific (e.g. we do not have fat indexes (yet!), nor segments). I also find his examples a bit contrived, and the whole "multi-user" argument irrelevant for common cases. I lean towards using separate tablespaces in Postgres, as the performance outweighs the additional complexity. It's down on the tuning list however: much more important is getting your kernel/volumes configured correctly, allocating shared_buffers sanely, separating pg_xlog, etc. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@xxxxxxxxxxxx End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201204251304 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAk+YL08ACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjR0wCfRF0fXpn7C7i5bZ6btDCT3+uX DU4AoIN3oSwPR+10F1N3jupCj5Dthjfh =EYGQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
