Greg Stark wrote:
You may
not expect to be need to run queries which combine multiple users'
data now but you will eventually.
We store cross-user data in a separate schema, which solves all *our*
problems.
This doesn't work so great when each user is going to be specifying
their own cus
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Mike Ivanov wrote:
>> i am developing a web app for thousands users (1.000/2.000).
>>
>> Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2 tables
>> = 4.000 tables!
>
> As a someone with a ~50K-table database, I can tell you it's definitely
> possib
Fabio La Farcioli wrote:
Hi to all,
i am developing a web app for thousands users (1.000/2.000).
Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2
tables = 4.000 tables!
As a someone with a ~50K-table database, I can tell you it's definitely
possible to survive with such a
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Kevin
Grittner wrote:
> Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Joseph S wrote:
>
>>> The question is what I do with my 14 drives. Should I use only 1
>>> pair for indexes or should I use 4 drives? The wal logs are
>>> already slated for an SSD.
>
>> Why not just spread all your i
Jeff Janes wrote:
> Joseph S wrote:
>> The question is what I do with my 14 drives. Should I use only 1
>> pair for indexes or should I use 4 drives? The wal logs are
>> already slated for an SSD.
> Why not just spread all your index data over 14 spindles, and do the
> same with your table d
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Joseph S wrote:
> I've already learned my lesson and will never use raid 5 again. The
> question is what I do with my 14 drives. Should I use only 1 pair for
> indexes or should I use 4 drives? The wal logs are already slated for an
> SSD.
>
Why not just spre
* Merlin Moncure [090831 10:38]:
> I agree, that's good analysis. The main point I was making was that
> if you have say a 10 disk raid 5, you don't involve 10 disks, only
> two...a very common misconception. I made another mistake that you
> didn't catch: you need to read *both* the data driv
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> 192k written
>> raid 10: six writes
>> raid 5: four writes, one read (but the read and one of the writes is
>> same physical location)
>>
>> now, by 'same physical' location, that may m
