Subject | Re: [Firebird-Architect] Re: Table partitioning |
---|---|
Author | Daniel Rail |
Post date | 2004-12-07T12:37:04Z |
Hello johnson_dave2003,
Monday, December 6, 2004, 7:44:51 PM, you wrote:
techniques when RAID(or anything similar) didn't exist, and that the
hard-drives were under 500MB and probably under 5400RPM. And, that
those techniques were only work-arounds for those days, and because
they were implemented, it was probably hard to remove them when they
could've been removed.
performance and having the database across multiple hard-drives, it is
better to go with a RAID system using striping.
--
Best regards,
Daniel Rail
Senior Software Developer
ACCRA Group Inc. (www.accra.ca)
ACCRA Med Software Inc. (www.filopto.com)
Monday, December 6, 2004, 7:44:51 PM, you wrote:
> This is indeed the practice in performance tuning other DBMS's (DB2Most likely those RDBMS systems introduced these performance tuning
> and Oracle specifically).
techniques when RAID(or anything similar) didn't exist, and that the
hard-drives were under 500MB and probably under 5400RPM. And, that
those techniques were only work-arounds for those days, and because
they were implemented, it was probably hard to remove them when they
could've been removed.
> One physical device for one type of I/OI'm with Jim here. The feature is not required. If you want
> that is anticipated to be in parallel. There is no advantage to
> splitting one table across multiple devices. However, there is an
> advantage to separating table from index, and both of these from logs.
performance and having the database across multiple hard-drives, it is
better to go with a RAID system using striping.
--
Best regards,
Daniel Rail
Senior Software Developer
ACCRA Group Inc. (www.accra.ca)
ACCRA Med Software Inc. (www.filopto.com)