Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles

From: "Pierre C" <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>
To: "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Steve Crawford" <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Ben Chobot" <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com>
Subject: Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles
Date: 2010-12-01 08:12:08
Message-ID: op.vm0zqifmeorkce@apollo13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance pgsql-www


> Is that true? I have no idea. I thought everything was done at the
> 512-byte block level.

Newer disks (2TB and up) can have 4k sectors, but this still means a page
spans several sectors.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pierre C 2010-12-01 08:23:23 Re: SELECT INTO large FKyed table is slow
Previous Message Mario Splivalo 2010-12-01 07:53:46 Re: SELECT INTO large FKyed table is slow

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tjibbe 2010-12-01 11:13:39 missing manual
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-12-01 04:02:39 Re: Pugs site