| From: | "Michael A(dot) Olson" <mao(at)sleepycat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AW: Berkeley DB... |
| Date: | 2000-05-25 14:41:08 |
| Message-ID: | 200005251443.HAA55946@triplerock.olsons.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 12:59 PM 5/25/00 +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
> 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
head.
mike
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-25 14:50:55 | Re: AW: AW: More Performance |
| Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2000-05-25 14:31:35 | RE: More Performance |