Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as

From: Markus Schaber <schabi(at)logix-tt(dot)com>
To: Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as
Date: 2006-09-21 07:31:12
Message-ID: 45123FC0.9060100@logix-tt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Hi, Luke,

Luke Lonergan wrote:

>> I thought that posix_fadvise() with POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED was exactly
>> meant for this purpose?
> 
> This is a good idea - I wasn't aware that this was possible.

This possibility was the reason for me to propose it. :-)

> We'll do some testing and see if it works as advertised on Linux and
> Solaris.

Fine, I'm looking forward to the results.

According to my small test, it works at least on linux 2.6.17.4.

Btw, posix_fadvise() could even give a small improvement for
multi-threaded backends, given that the I/O subsystem is smart enough to
cope intelligently to cope with large bunches of outstanding requests.

HTH,
Markus

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: yoav xDate: 2006-09-21 14:52:44
Subject: PostgreSQL and sql-bench
Previous:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2006-09-21 00:23:31
Subject: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group