Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SSD performance

From: david(at)lang(dot)hm
To: James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SSD performance
Date: 2009-01-27 07:51:33
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, James Mansion wrote:

> 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?

it doesn't just gain on fsync speed, but also raw transfer speed.

if everything stays in the OS buffers than you are right, but when you 
start to exceed those buffers is when fast storage like this is very 

David Lang

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Craig RingerDate: 2009-01-27 08:14:06
Subject: Re: Odd behavior with temp usage logging
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2009-01-27 06:53:09
Subject: Odd behavior with temp usage logging

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group