| From: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Scott Carey" <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, "jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jean-David Beyer" <jeandavid8(at)verizon(dot)net>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing |
| Date: | 2008-12-09 22:58:44 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070812091458w14021741s61996a27e94f1c82@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> Hmm ... I wonder whether this means that the current work on
> parallelizing I/O (the posix_fadvise patch in particular) is a dead
> end. Because what that is basically going to do is expend more CPU
> to improve I/O efficiency. If you believe this thesis then that's
> not the road we want to go down.
I don't believe the thesis. The gap between disk speeds and memory
speeds may narrow over time, but I doubt it's likely to disappear
altogether any time soon, and certainly not for all users.
Besides which, I believe the CPU overhead of that patch is pretty darn
small when the feature is not enabled.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-12-09 23:05:13 | Re: Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing |
| Previous Message | David Wilson | 2008-12-09 22:41:33 | Re: query plan with index having a btrim is different for strings of different length |