| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Guy Thornley <guy(at)esphion(dot)com>, Markus Schaber <schabi(at)logix-tt(dot)com>, Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as |
| Date: | 2006-09-22 14:02:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20060922140228.GX28987@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 11:05:39PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> We tried posix_fadvise() during the 8.2 development cycle, but had
> problems as outlined in a comment in xlog.c:
>
> /*
> * posix_fadvise is problematic on many platforms: on older x86 Linux
> * it just dumps core, and there are reports of problems on PPC platforms
> * as well. The following is therefore disabled for the time being.
> * We could consider some kind of configure test to see if it's safe to
> * use, but since we lack hard evidence that there's any useful performance
> * gain to be had, spending time on that seems unprofitable for now.
> */
In case it's not clear, that's a call for someone to do some performance
testing. :)
Bruce, you happen to have a URL for a patch to put fadvise in?
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Turner | 2006-09-22 15:34:58 | Confusion and Questions about blocks read |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-09-22 14:01:14 | Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as |