| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Daniel Loureiro <loureirorg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vaibhav Kaushal <vaibhavkaushal123(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone for SSDs? |
| Date: | 2010-12-10 23:44:46 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=x0eayUs1wfYmjLne1D4-zk64eK8=6aGxwVgOd@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Actually, the only (that I know of) optimized for sequential access code
> we have would be for the xlogs.
And even that is more of a book-keeping simplification, rather than an
optimization.
You have to know where to find the logically next (in a PG sense)
record. If the logically next record is
not right after (in a file system sense) the previous record, then
where is it and how do you find it?
If you really wanted to make it non-sequential, you could, with a
substantial amount of work. But why
would you want to? On spinning rust, you might want to try
leap-frogging the platter, but that is
never going to be generalizable to different work-loads, much less
different hardware.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2010-12-10 23:47:17 | Re: Anyone for SSDs? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-12-10 23:39:04 | Re: Anyone for SSDs? |