| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Loureiro <loureirorg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vaibhav Kaushal <vaibhavkaushal123(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone for SSDs? |
| Date: | 2010-12-10 23:14:18 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinpYcyz+E4N=br3946jbLRpV1bFmJO4eBi7CqkS@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> Heck, even RAM isn't 1.0. I'm also involved with the Redis project,
> which is an in-memory database. Even for a pure-RAM database, it turns
> out that just using linked lists and 100% random access is slower than
> accessing page images.
That's a slightly different problem, though. Sequential vs. random
access is about whether fetching pages n, n+1, n+2, ... is faster than
skipping around, not whether accessing fewer pages is faster than
more.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2010-12-10 23:14:53 | Re: would hw acceleration help postgres (databases in general) ? |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-12-10 23:13:23 | Re: Anyone for SSDs? |