Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SSD performance

From: James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, david(at)lang(dot)hm, glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SSD performance
Date: 2009-01-27 06:37:39
Message-ID: 497EABB3.1050903@mansionfamily.plus.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Craig Ringer wrote:
> These devices would be interesting for a few uses, IMO. One is temp
> table space and sort space in Pg. Another is scratch space for apps
> (like Photoshop) that do their own VM management. There's also potential
>   
Surely temp tables and sort space isn't subject to fsync and won't gain 
that much since they
should stay in the OS cache?  The device will surely help seek- or 
sync-bound tasks.

Doesn't that make it a good candidate for WAL and hot tables?

James


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2009-01-27 06:53:09
Subject: Odd behavior with temp usage logging
Previous:From: davidDate: 2009-01-27 04:06:09
Subject: Re: [PERFORMANCE] Buying hardware

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group