I keep track of my various database interests with a gaggle of sites and blogs. For PostgreSQL, I've signed up for the Performance sublist. It's mostly about fixing things in parts of the engine in response to questions like: "my query is slower in PG than it is in SQL Server; how come?", and such.
A thread started today that's of interest to this endeavor. It started out with one person wondering why a Fusion-io drive runs so fast, but PG doesn't run any faster. Then another chimed in to say he was setting up PG with Fusion-io drives. Looks to be an interesting discussion. Now, if only my employer would let me buy some of those Fusion-io drives! BCNF to the rescue.
Here's the list.
The thread is titled: concurrent IO in Postgres?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
We (Percona) have done extensive testing and performance analysis (and changes to the server) for MySQL/InnoDB on Fusion-IO and Virident over the last few years. You might be interested in following Vadim's blog posts on mysqlperformanceblog.com and ssdperformanceblog.com.
Absolutely. As much publicly available data on SSD performance is better. While I still believe that SSD as primary store, and thus supporting BCNF catalogs, is the future, I'm willing to be contradicted by hard data.
Clearly, the SSD vendors and storage vendors, likely pressured by their clients, have backed away from byte for byte HDD to SSD replacement to SSD as "cache" to HDD. For legacy flatfile applications, that makes perfect sense. But it's not the true value add for the device.
Post a Comment