Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > So it has nothing to do with table size. The fadvise calls need to be
> > (and are)
> > limited by what can be used in the near future, and not for the whole
> > statement.
> Right, I was sloppy. Instead of table size, what matters is the amount
> of data the scan needs to access. The point remains that if the data is
> already in OS cache, the posix_fadvise calls are a waste of time,
> regardless of how many pages ahead you advise.
I now understand what posix_fadvise() is allowing us to do.
posix_fadvise(POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED) allows us to tell the kernel we will
need a certain block in the future --- this seems much cheaper than a
We know we will need the blocks, and telling the kernel can't hurt,
except that there is overhead in telling the kernel. Has anyone
measured how much overhead? I would be interested in a test program
that read the same page over and over again from the kernel, with and
without a posix_fadvise() call.
Should we consider only telling the kernel X pages ahead, meaning when
we are on page 10 we tell it about page 16?
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Zubkovsky, Sergey||Date: 2008-03-28 15:43:29|
|Subject: Re: [DOCS] pg_total_relation_size() and CHECKPOINT|
|Previous:||From: Chris Browne||Date: 2008-03-28 15:33:42|
|Subject: Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning|