From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Manoel Henrique <mhenriquesgbd(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Research/Implementation of Nested Loop Join optimization |
Date: | 2008-07-26 05:27:58 |
Message-ID: | 488AB5DE.8070100@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> "Manoel Henrique" <mhenriquesgbd(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Yes, I'm relying on the assumption that backwards scan has the same cost as
>>> forward scan, why shouldn't it?
>
> G...we expect that forward scans will result
> in the kernel doing read-ahead, ...
> A backwards scan will get no such overlapping and thus be up to 2X
> slower, unless the kernel is smart enough to do read-ahead for
> descending-order read requests. Which seems not too probable.
Linux's old adaptive readahead patches claimed to[1]:
It also have methods to detect some less common cases:
- reading backward"
Interestingly the author of that patch used postgres as the example
application that benefits from the patch (30%).
I'm not sure if the backward reading feature got kept
in the simplified on-demand readahead that seems to have
superseded the adaptive readahead stuff in 2.6.23[2].
[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/185469/
[2] http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_23#head-102af265937262a7a21766ae58fddc1a29a5d8d7
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-26 05:38:27 | Re: Research/Implementation of Nested Loop Join optimization |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-26 04:03:28 | Re: [RFC] Unsigned integer support. |