| From: | Daniel Loureiro <loureirorg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vaibhav Kaushal <vaibhavkaushal123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone for SSDs? |
| Date: | 2010-12-10 20:21:33 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinia5uFimyc__CR83s7-58coOvWYY1EzZ8spD=L@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> Most of you already know I am new to this list and newer to any OSS
>> development. However, while browsing the source code (of 9.0.1) I find
>> that there is only one way to store relations on disk - the magnetic
>> disk.
>The fact that it's called md.c is a hangover from the '80s. These days,
>the logic that the Berkeley guys envisioned being at that code level
>is generally in kernel device drivers. md.c can drive anything that
>behaves as a block device + filesystem, which is pretty much everything
>of interest.
I believe that PostgreSQL was been developed and optimized for
sequential access. To get full advantage of SSDs its necessary to
rewrite almost the whole project - there are so much code written with
the sequential mechanism in mind.
--
Daniel Loureiro
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-12-10 20:24:44 | Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-12-10 20:17:31 | ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; (was: Extensions, patch v16) |