Re: 8.4 Performance improvements: was Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Alan Stange <stange(at)rentec(dot)com>, "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance\(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8.4 Performance improvements: was Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
Date: 2009-03-14 02:06:16
Message-ID: 26666.1236996376@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Ugh. So apparently, we actually need to special-case Solaris to not
>> believe that posix_fadvise works, or we'll waste cycles uselessly
>> calling a do-nothing function. Thanks, Sun.

> Do we? Or do we just document that setting effective_cache_size on Solaris
> won't help?

I assume you meant effective_io_concurrency. We'd still need a special
case because the default is currently hard-wired at 1, not 0, if
configure thinks the function exists. Also there's a posix_fadvise call
in xlog.c that that parameter doesn't control anyhow.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vamsidhar Thummala 2009-03-14 02:10:43 Re: Hash Join performance
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2009-03-14 01:58:50 Re: 8.4 Performance improvements: was Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4