Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as

From: Mark Lewis <mark(dot)lewis(at)mir3(dot)com>
To: Bucky Jordan <bjordan(at)lumeta(dot)com>
Cc: Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Markus Schaber <schabi(at)logix-tt(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as
Date: 2006-09-21 19:41:54
Message-ID: 1158867714.9657.1680.camel@archimedes
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

> So this might be a dumb question, but the above statements apply to the
> cluster (e.g. postmaster) as a whole, not per postgres
> process/transaction correct? So each transaction is blocked waiting for
> the main postmaster to retrieve the data in the order it was requested
> (i.e. not multiple scanners/aio)?

Each connection runs its own separate back-end process, so these
statements apply per PG connection (=process).

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Markus Schaber 2006-09-21 19:54:06 Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as
Previous Message Bucky Jordan 2006-09-21 19:13:55 Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as