Re: random_page_cost vs ssd?

From: Andrej <andrej(dot)groups(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>
Cc: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: random_page_cost vs ssd?
Date: 2009-03-11 19:04:17
Message-ID: b35603930903111204l6825f931kf67183f7c48971fe@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

2009/3/12 Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>:
> [...snip...]. All tests start with 'cat 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches', and work on
> a 32GB data set (40% of the disk).
What's the content of '3' above?

--
Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :} Make your quotes concise.

http://www.american.edu/econ/notes/htmlmail.htm

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Frank Joerdens 2009-03-11 19:27:10 Full statement logging problematic on larger machines?
Previous Message Scott Carey 2009-03-11 17:06:53 Re: random_page_cost vs ssd?