| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL win32 fragmentation issue |
| Date: | 2006-12-03 04:36:15 |
| Message-ID: | 12796.1165120575@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> writes:
> A related point comes to mind, consider the single "tablespace" file for
> example: It may have no fragmentation from a *file* perspective, but
> supposing you have several busy relations being inserted or updated then
> pages (or groups of pages) for these could be "fragmented" throughout
> the tablespace file.
+1 ... what was said upthread sounds to me like those other databases
are just hiding the fragmentation issue within their
huge-files-you-can't-see-into. I would very much like to see some proof
of performance problems before we worry about this.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ken Johanson | 2006-12-03 04:57:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Case Preservation disregarding case |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-03 03:51:57 | Re: GUC description cleanup |