| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Ron Mayer" <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
| Date: | 2006-05-16 08:17:20 |
| Message-ID: | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901054324@m0143.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Personally, I believe it would be worth it - but only to a few. And
> > these most of these few are likely using Oracle. So, no gain unless
> > you can convince them to switch back... :-)
>
> We do know that the benefit for commercial databases that use raw and
> file system storage is that raw storage is only a few percentage
> points faster.
Imho it is really not comparable because they all use direct or async IO
that bypasses the OS buffercache even when using filesystem files for
storage.
A substantial speed difference is allocation of space for restore
(no format of fs and no file allocation needed).
I am not saying this to advocate moving in that direction however.
I do however think that there is substantial headroom in reducing the
number
of IO calls and reducing on disk storage requirements.
Especially in concurrent load scenarios.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-16 08:47:12 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #2429: Explain does not report object's schema |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD | 2006-05-16 07:24:38 | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |