From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Loureiro <loureirorg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vaibhav Kaushal <vaibhavkaushal123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Anyone for SSDs? |
Date: | 2010-12-29 20:11:18 |
Message-ID: | 201012292011.oBTKBIb14178@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Of course if you do a full table scan because their are no better
> > options, then it scans sequentially. But you have to scan the pages
> > in *some* order, and it is hard to see how something other than
> > sequential would be systematically better.
>
> In fact, if sequential *isn't* the best order for reading the whole
> file, the filesystem has lost its marbles completely; because that is
> the order in which most files are read, so files ought to be laid out
> on disk (or whatever storage device) to be read most quickly that way.
Plus kernel read-ahead helps with sequential access too because the
kernel can guess the next blocks to be requested --- hard to do that
with random I/O. SSD have fast access but still benefit from
read-ahead.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-12-29 20:18:48 | Re: Anyone for SSDs? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-29 20:01:10 | Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either |