On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> Heck, even RAM isn't 1.0. I'm also involved with the Redis project,
> which is an in-memory database. Even for a pure-RAM database, it turns
> out that just using linked lists and 100% random access is slower than
> accessing page images.
That's a slightly different problem, though. Sequential vs. random
access is about whether fetching pages n, n+1, n+2, ... is faster than
skipping around, not whether accessing fewer pages is faster than
more.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
