| From: | Daniel Loureiro <loureirorg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2010-12-11 01:06:57 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=35F2NmHkdYuzj98gCzVbBS+WB6xvUqJ3jjVtb@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> You can believe whatever you want, that doesn't make it true.
completely agree. Like yours, Its just my point of view, not the reality.
I agree with some points here, but I wondering how many good ideas are
killed with the thought: "this will be a performance killer with so
many random access, lets discarded it". An quicksort method in
sequential disk its just awful to be thinking in a non SSD world, but
its possible in an SSD.
If in 80's the sequential access has more cost compared with random
access will be the PostgreSQL in the same design that it have nowadays
?
--
Daniel Loureiro
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-12-11 01:14:25 | Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-12-11 01:02:55 | Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; |