| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
| 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 15:33:25 |
| Message-ID: | 24481.1230910405@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The only thing I haven't been able to do is demonstrate that this change
>> actually produces a performance improvement. Either I'm testing the
>> wrong thing, or it just doesn't provide any benefit on a single-spindle
>> system.
> When I did a round of testing on the earlier prefetch test program Greg
> Stark put together, one of my single-spindle Linux system didn't show any
> real benefit. So as long as you didn't see performance degrade, your not
> seeing any improvement isn't bad news.
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.
If the test case is either 100% CPU-bound or 100% I/O-bound then no,
but for anything in between there ought to be improvement.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-01-02 15:38:52 | Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-02 15:20:20 | Re: Including kerberos realm |