Got Intel 900p for Database, Underwhelmed with Results

[leviathan74]

System

Windows 7 Pro x64
i7 4770k
32GB of RAM
Asus R9 270
Samsung Pro 850 256GB
Samsung EV 840 500 GB

Background

I have two pokertracker databases. One containing my complete playing history is 125GB big is the one I use for complete accounting and comparative stats across time and another containing the most recent hand histories is the one I use for my HUD. The former is saved on my D Drive, a Samsung Evo 840 and the latter on my C Drive, a Samsung Pro 850.

The Problem

As the size of the databases has increased so did the time to load data. This became very cumbersome when I wanted to compare stats across different timeframes, especially on the larger database where it took minutes to switch from one dataset to another.

Steps I took before buying the new Drive

- I experimented a ton with the Postgresql config file. Nothing made an appreciable difference.

- I tried all the housekeeping options: reindexing, vacuuming and analyzing and finally clustering. Clustering ended up making a huge difference which is something I didn't expect and I hadn't tried before, because I had read that clustering wasn't needed if you had an SSD. Well, it does. It cut the loading times for my large database from 10 to around 2 minutes. Huge improvement.

Benchmarking

The Advanced Tab of my Stats tab has 38 columns and 6 rows.

It takes 1m 15s to load my small database.

It takes 1m 55s to load my big database.

Getting the Intel Optane 900p

Since the Hard Drive is supposedly the biggest bottleneck for pokertracker database speeds and the newly introduced Intel Optane 900p is the fastest SSD on the market being 3-5 times faster than the fastest NVME drive, I thought it would make an appreciable difference.

However, on the Intel 900p:

It takes 1m 15s to load my small database, i.e. no difference at all.

It takes 1m 47s to load my big database, i.e. the super duper fastest drive ever only shaves 8 seconds.

That doesn't justify the cost. I would expect that loading times would be bellow 1m for both databases.

Am I doing something wrong?

I downloaded and installed Intel's NVME and 900p drivers.

I double checked that the PCI express slot the drive is installed in is set to 4x.

I did benchmark the drive. Sequential speeds seem less fast than I would expect (around 1500MBs instead of 2200 MBs), but it's still 3 times faster than the other drives.

I suspect that me having an older 1150 motherboard and using Windows 7 instead of Windows 10 might be the problem, but I don't think the possibility is that high that either of those is the problem.

It needs to be said that all reviews of the Intel 900 state that most users won't be able to see a noticeable difference in day to day activities. But if you are only able to see an 8 second difference when loading a 125GB database, who can see enough of a difference to justify the cost?

I am afraid that this is as good of a performance as I can squeeze out of this drive. Question is, have I missed anything?

PS. Crossposting at the 2+2 forums as well.