From: | Paul Thomas <paul(at)tmsl(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "scott (dot) marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-performance (at) postgresql (dot) org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Scaling further up |
Date: | 2004-03-04 00:52:08 |
Message-ID: | 20040304005208.A25816@bacon |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 03/03/2004 18:23 scott.marlowe wrote:
> [snip]
> There are three factors that affect how fast you can get to the next
> sector:
>
> seek time
> settle time
> rotational latency
>
> Most drives only list the first, and don't bother to mention the other
> two.
Ah yes, one of my (very) few still functioning brain cells was nagging
about another bit of time in the equation :)
> On many modern drives, the seek times are around 5 to 10 milliseconds.
> [snip]
Going back to the OPs posting about random_page_cost, imagine I have 2
servers identical in every way except the disk drive. Server A has a 10K
rpm drive and server B has a 15K rpm drive. Seek/settle times aren't
spectacularly different between the 2 drives. I'm wondering if drive B
might actually merit a _higher_ random_page_cost than drive A as, once it
gets settled on a disk track, it can suck the data off a lot faster.
opinions/experiences anyone?
--
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller
Business |
| Computer Consultants |
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-03-04 01:31:48 | Re: Feature request: smarter use of conditional indexes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-03 23:53:56 | Re: Feature request: smarter use of conditional indexes |