| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Initial prefetch performance testing |
| Date: | 2008-09-24 15:15:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1222269339.4445.597.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 17:42 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Yeah. Nevertheless I like the way effective_spindle_count works, as
> opposed to an unintuitive "number of blocks to prefetch" (assuming the
> formula we use to turn the former into latter works). Perhaps we should
> keep the meaning the same, but call it "effective_io_concurrency"?
> Something that conveys the idea of "how many simultaneous I/O requests
> the I/O subsystem can handle", without referring to any specific
> technology. That concept applies to SANs and RAM drives as well.
You've spoiled all the fun now with a good suggestion.
I was looking forward to the Jules Verne-like nostalgia of the other
suggestion over the years to come.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-09-24 15:32:16 | Re: Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches (for CommitFest:Sep) |
| Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-09-24 15:14:59 | Re: FSM, now without WAL-logging |