Something tells me that the inclusion of an HDD into the data set would have altered the interpretation of the data. Given that it’s 30 for SSD and higher for remote disk, it sounds like the default of 4 is either wrong or the “what is the right value for SSD “ isn’t measured correctly
pgaddict|1 hour ago
I wouldn't be all that surprised if this was (partially) due to Postgres being less optimized back then, which might have hidden some of the random vs. sequential differences. But that's just a wild guess.