Re: Initial prefetch performance testing

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Initial prefetch performance testing
Date: 2008-09-22 16:28:31
Message-ID: 1222100911.4445.200.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 16:46 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 04:57 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> >
> >> -As Greg Stark suggested, the larger the spindle count the larger the
> >> speedup, and the larger the prefetch size that might make sense. His
> >> suggestion to model the user GUC as "effective_spindle_count" looks like a
> >> good one. The sequential scan fadvise implementation patch submitted uses
> >> the earlier preread_pages name for that parameter, which I agree seems
> >> less friendly.
> >
> > Good news about the testing.
> >
> > I'd prefer to set this as a tablespace level storage parameter.
>
> Sounds, like a good idea, except... what's a tablespace level storage parameter?

A storage parameter, just at tablespace level.

WITH (storage_parameter = value)

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua Drake 2008-09-22 16:30:24 Re: parallel pg_restore
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-09-22 16:24:28 Re: parallel pg_restore