> > Wow, that sounds darn slow. Speed of a seq scan on one CPU,
> > one disk should give you more like 19000 rows/s with a
> small record size.
> > Of course you are probably talking about random fetch order here,
> > but we need fast seq scans too.
>
> The test was random reads on a 250GB database. I don't have a
> similar characterization for sequential scans off the top of my
> head.
Yes, for random access this timing sounds better. Was that timing taken with
access through a secondary index or through the recnum ?
Did you make sure that nothing was cached, not even the recnum index ?
Andreas
