Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD
Date: 2010-08-10 20:00:24
Message-ID: AANLkTim+z+FV30=2g-RQMPirGQj27dUt+PjwaozENbwD@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> My point being, no matter how terrible an idea a certain storage media
> is, there's always a use case for it.  Even if it's very narrow.

The trouble is, if extra subscribers induce load on the "master,"
which they presumably will, then that sliver of "use case" may very
well get obscured by the cost, such that the sliver should be treated
as not existing :-(.
--
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2010-08-10 20:06:27 Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2010-08-10 19:52:16 Re: Completely un-tuned Postgresql benchmark results: SSD vs desktop HDD