Luke Lonergan wrote:
>> I thought that posix_fadvise() with POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED was exactly
>> meant for this purpose?
> This is a good idea - I wasn't aware that this was possible.
This possibility was the reason for me to propose it. :-)
> We'll do some testing and see if it works as advertised on Linux and
Fine, I'm looking forward to the results.
According to my small test, it works at least on linux 220.127.116.11.
Btw, posix_fadvise() could even give a small improvement for
multi-threaded backends, given that the I/O subsystem is smart enough to
cope intelligently to cope with large bunches of outstanding requests.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: yoav x||Date: 2006-09-21 14:52:44|
|Subject: PostgreSQL and sql-bench|
|Previous:||From: Luke Lonergan||Date: 2006-09-21 00:23:31|
|Subject: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as|