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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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?


In response to


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 © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group