On 25 May 2010 09:04, David Boxenhorn wrote:
> I have seen several off-hand mentions that writes are inherently faster
> than reads. Why is this so?
>
In addition to the points that other posters made, writes only need to go as
far as your battery-backed raid controller, whereas reads go all the
Writes only have to write to the journal before returning. Reads have
to read potentially from several sources, including binary searches of
things that may or may not be cached anywhere. The journal writes do
not involve much random disk IO, while the read activity does.
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Mark Greene wrote:
> I'm fairly certain the write path hits the commit log first, then the
> memtable.
True, but that does not make them any less sequential -- journal logs
are strictly sequential fast writes. Actual ordering occurs in memory,
and results are even
> I'm fairly certain the write path hits the commit log first, then the
> memtable.
I didn't mean to imply an ordering between the two (I probably should
not have said "memtable plus commit log"...), and yes I believe so.
--
/ Peter Schuller aka scode
I'm fairly certain the write path hits the commit log first, then the
memtable.
2010/5/25 Peter Schüller
> > I have seen several off-hand mentions that writes are inherently faster
> than
> > reads. Why is this so?
>
> I believe the primary factor people are referring to is that writes
> are fas
> I have seen several off-hand mentions that writes are inherently faster than
> reads. Why is this so?
I believe the primary factor people are referring to is that writes
are faster than reads in terms of disk I/O because writes are
inherently sequential. Writes initially only happen in-memory pl
I have seen several off-hand mentions that writes are inherently faster than
reads. Why is this so?
