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

Re: posix_fadvise v22

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Postgres <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: posix_fadvise v22
Date: 2009-01-02 19:25:47
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.64.0901021416310.15834@westnet.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Tom Lane wrote:

> ISTM that you *should* be able to see an improvement on even
> single-spindle systems, due to better overlapping of CPU and I/O effort.

The earlier synthetic tests I did:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-09/msg01401.php

Showed a substantial speedup even in the single spindle case on a couple 
of systems, but one didn't really seem to benefit.  So we could theorize 
that Robert's test system is more like that one.  If someone can help out 
with making a more formal test case showing this in action, I'll dig into 
the details of what's different between that system and the others.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alex HunsakerDate: 2009-01-02 19:42:56
Subject: Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4?
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2009-01-02 19:20:17
Subject: Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels

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