On Friday, October 10, 2014 8:39:43 AM UTC-7, Jörg Prante wrote: > > RAM is 1000x faster than SSD. >
I mean this is the big caveat isn't it? If you can fit your whole index in RAM, then great, go for it... but others have loads that can't it all in RAM at which point SSD becomes a decent option. Honestly for many workloads running it ALL out or SSD is an option. This was what I was getting at... To me, RAM based search isn't that interesting any more as even on fully random IO you can saturate a gigabit link on modern SSDs... but if you're doing crazy queries perhaps RAM is still required. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elasticsearch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/46ba386f-0442-4a86-9c0d-bdd9f2fd8af3%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
