
> > 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

Thu, 25 May 2000 17:56:15 +0200
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: AW: Berkeley DB...