From: | Matthew <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RAID arrays and performance |
Date: | 2007-12-04 16:16:41 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0712041603490.3731@aragorn.flymine.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Gregory Stark wrote:
> Fwiw, what made you bring up this topic now? You're the second person in about
> two days to bring up precisely this issue and it was an issue I had been
> planning to bring up on -hackers as it was.
I only just joined the performance mailing list to talk about R-trees. I
would probably have brought it up earlier if I had been here earlier.
However, we're thinking of buying this large machine, and that reminded
me.
I have been biting at the bit for my bosses to allow me time to write an
indexing system for transient data - a lookup table backed by disc,
looking up from an integer to get an object, native in Java. Our system
often needs to fetch a list of a thousand different objects by a key like
that, and Postgres just doesn't do that exact thing fast. I was going to
implement it with full asynchronous IO, to do that particular job very
fast, so I have done a reasonable amount of research into the topic. In
Java, that is. It would add a little bit more performance for our system.
That wouldn't cover us - we still need to do complex queries with the same
problem, and that'll have to stay in Postgres.
Matthew
--
The early bird gets the worm. If you want something else for breakfast, get
up later.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Mielke | 2007-12-04 16:32:14 | Re: RAID arrays and performance |
Previous Message | Mark Mielke | 2007-12-04 16:11:28 | Re: RAID arrays and performance |