| From: | Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | John A Meinel <john(at)arbash-meinel(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: read block size |
| Date: | 2005-06-28 17:27:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20050628172701.GW9591@mathom.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:02:55PM -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
>There has been discussion about changing the reading/writing code to be
>able to handle multiple pages at once, (using something like vread())
>but I don't know that it has been implemented.
that sounds promising
>Also, this would hurt cases where you can terminate as sequential scan
>early.
If you're doing a sequential scan of a 10G file in, say, 1M blocks I
don't think the performance difference of reading a couple of blocks
unnecessarily is going to matter.
>And if the OS is doing it's job right, it will already do some
>read-ahead for you.
The app should have a much better idea of whether it's doing a
sequential scan and won't be confused by concurrent activity. Even if
the OS does readahead perfectly, you'll still get a with with larger
blocks by cutting down on the syscalls.
Mike Stone
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sam Mason | 2005-06-28 17:42:05 | Re: tricky query |
| Previous Message | Karl O. Pinc | 2005-06-28 17:16:41 | Re: Poor index choice -- multiple indexes of the same |