| From: | Vitalii Tymchyshyn <tivv00(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Willem Leenen <willem_leenen(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Niels Kristian Schjødt <nielskristian(at)autouncle(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>, sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Optimize update query |
| Date: | 2012-11-30 10:31:52 |
| Message-ID: | CABWW-d2tzTQ8Wpk-sf6ZgPJpqzU3FAFSQfD523NzS=n7HqV7wg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
SSDs are not faster for sequential IO as I know. That's why (with BBU or
synchronious_commit=off) I prefer to have logs on regular HDDs.
Best reag
2012/11/30 Willem Leenen <willem_leenen(at)hotmail(dot)com>
>
> Actually, what's the point in putting logs to ssd? SSDs are good for
> random access and logs are accessed sequentially. I'd put table spaces on
> ssd and leave logs on hdd
> 30 лист. 2012 04:33, "Niels Kristian Schjødt" <
> nielskristian(at)autouncle(dot)com> напис.
> Because SSD's are considered faster. Then you have to put the most
> phyisical IO intensive operations on SSD. For the majority of databases,
> these are the logfiles. But you should investigate where the optimum is for
> your situation.
>
>
--
Best regards,
Vitalii Tymchyshyn
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-11-30 12:03:59 | Re: Optimize update query |
| Previous Message | Willem Leenen | 2012-11-30 10:14:15 | Re: Optimize update query |