Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
- From: Alan Hodgson <ahodgson(at)simkin(dot)ca>
- To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:01:03 -0700
On Monday 18 September 2006 13:56, "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote: > just another fyi, if you have a really big database, you can forget > about doing pg_dump for backups (unless you really don't care about > being x day or days behind)...you simply have to due some type of > replication/failover strategy. i would start with pitr. And, of course, the biggest problem of all; upgrades. -- Eat right. Exercise regularly. Die anyway.
- References:
- Re: RAID 0 not as fast as expected
- From: Luke Lonergan
- Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
- From: Bucky Jordan
- Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
- From: Merlin Moncure
- Re: RAID 0 not as fast as expected
- Prev by Date: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
- Next by Date: Re: Vacuums on large busy databases
- Previous by thread: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
- Next by thread: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
- Indexes: