> Reading from RAM is certainly faster than disk, but reading less is faster than reading either from RAM or from disk. This is just not true in a lot of ways.

> Reading from RAM is certainly faster than disk, but reading less is faster than reading either from RAM or from disk. This is just not true in a lot of ways. For example, you can use memory to store the same data in multiple ways, and then you get blistering fast access, whereas if you only store it in a single way, you may get a range of read performance between "as good" to "really really bad". I understand why what you said sounds true, but it's not that simple at all.