Message-ID: <4E058830.8070009@krogh.cc>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 09:03:12 +0200
From: Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
CC: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build
References: <BANLkTikgOQ1+r=A9b08szNTeEWsk-cNMMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DEC84D7.7040602@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DEC84D7.7040602@enterprisedb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2011-06-06 09:42, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> took about 15 hours without the patch, and 2 hours with it. That's 
> quite dramatic.

With the precense of robust consumer-class SSD-drives that can be
found in sizes where they actually can fit "many" database usage
scenarios. A PostgreSQL version is not likely to hit the streets before
50% of PostgreSQL users are sitting on "some kind" of flash based
storage (for the part where the entire dataset doesn't fit in memory
any more). Point is:

* Wouldn't it be natural to measure the performance benefits of
    disc-bound tests in an SSD setup?

... my understanding of Fast gi(n|st) index build is that it is
more or less a challenge to transform a lot of random IO workload
to be more sequential and collapse multiple changes into fewer.

In terms of random IO an SSD can easily be x100 better than rotating
drives and it would be a shame to optimize "against" that world?

-- 
Jesper