Re: Table Partitioning in Postgres:
Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com>
From: Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com>
To: Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net>
Cc: "Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>, "PGSQL General (E-mail)" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Date: 2003-02-19T17:31:02Z
Lists: pgsql-general
> ignorant on the exact device details. You wouldn't happen to have the > skinny of those things would ya? They still being made? I wish, especially if they are the same price as regular IDE disks and the Linux kernel supports them! > Your comments really serve to enforce that IDE stinks and stresses that > IDE should not be used where serious database performance is needed. > Needless to say, I think we all already understood that. ;) Even more so, it shows the difference between server-clas computer components and consumer-class computer components. It's sometimes wearing on the mind to get the finance guy at my company to understand why a server with the same "specs" (using the term loosely) as a desktop machine costs thousands more. After long discussions extolling the virtues of ECC RAM, redundant hot-swappable power supplies, SCSI hard disks, RAID-1, and cooling requirements, I can sometimes convince him that there is a real reason for the price difference. Jon > > Regards, > > > -- > Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net> > Copeland Computer Consulting >