OK, this was unexpected. Seriously unexpected. It doesn't match what I saw (years ago) testing early gen flash storage. So my question(s):
Is the test here flawed?
Or, was my test (or approach) flawed?
Or, have drives optimized for sequential better than they used to?
Or, is this a measure of inefficiency in Postgres vs. the underlying hardware?
I'd expect random access reads to be well sub-2us and (on the latest hardware) sub-1us. Even 15 years ago, they weren't 40us (from what I remember). I feel like I'm missing something major here, and I'm guessing it's something in the Postgres code.
I test on a PCIe v5 4x NVMe setup now, but I don't have a decent micro-benchmark handy. Any suggestions?
cpurdy | 4 hours ago
OK, this was unexpected. Seriously unexpected. It doesn't match what I saw (years ago) testing early gen flash storage. So my question(s):
I'd expect random access reads to be well sub-2us and (on the latest hardware) sub-1us. Even 15 years ago, they weren't 40us (from what I remember). I feel like I'm missing something major here, and I'm guessing it's something in the Postgres code.
I test on a PCIe v5 4x NVMe setup now, but I don't have a decent micro-benchmark handy. Any suggestions?