> > Wow, that sounds darn slow. Speed of a seq scan on one CPU,
> > one disk should give you more like 19000 rows/s with a
> small record size.
> > Of course you are probably talking about random fetch order here,
> > but we need fast seq scans too.
> The test was random reads on a 250GB database. I don't have a
> similar characterization for sequential scans off the top of my
Yes, for random access this timing sounds better. Was that timing taken with
access through a secondary index or through the recnum ?
Did you make sure that nothing was cached, not even the recnum index ?
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB||Date: 2000-05-25 16:02:06|
|Subject: AW: AW: AW: SQL3 UNDER|
|Previous:||From: Ed Loehr||Date: 2000-05-25 15:51:23|
|Subject: vacuum analyze feedback|