On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Jeff <thres...@torgo.978.org> wrote: > I've got a couple x25-e's in production now and they are working like a > champ. (In fact, I've got another box being built with all x25s in it. its > going to smoke!) > > Anyway, I was just reading another thread on here and that made me wonder > about random_page_cost in the world of an ssd where a seek is basically > free. I haven't tested this yet (I can do that next week), but logically, > in this scenario wouldn't lowering random_page_cost be ideal or would it not > really matter in the grand scheme of things?
Just on a side note, random access on SSD is still more expensive than sequential, because it is designed in banks. If you don believe me, turn off any software/OS cache , and try random access timing against seq reads. This gap is just much much narrower. -- GJ -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
