Re: Read/Write block sizes

rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net (Ron) writes:
> At 03:45 PM 8/25/2005, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> > Ask me sometime about my replacement for GNU sort. Â It uses the
>> > same sorting algorithm, but it's an order of magnitude faster due
>> > to better I/O strategy. Â Someday, in my infinite spare time, I
>> > hope to demonstrate that kind of improvement with a patch to pg.
>>
>>Since we desperately need some improvements in sort performance, I
>>do hope you follow up on this.
>
> I'll generalize that. IMO we desperately need any and all
> improvements in IO performance. Even more so than we need
> improvements in sorting or sorting IO performance.

That's frankly a step backwards.

Feel free to "specialise" that instead.

A patch that improves some specific aspect of performance is a
thousand times better than any sort of "desperate desire for any and
all improvements in I/O performance."

The latter is unlikely to provide any usable result.

The "specialized patch" is also pointedly better in that a
*confidently submitted* patch is likely to be way better than any sort
of "desperate clutching at whatever may come to hand."

Far too often, I see people trying to address performance problems via
the "desperate clutching at whatever seems near to hand," and that
generally turns out very badly as a particular result of the whole
"desperate clutching" part.

If you can get a sort improvement submitted, that's a concrete
improvement...
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'ntlug.org';
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/lisp.html
Appendium to the Rules of the Evil Overlord #1: "I will not build
excessively integrated security-and-HVAC systems. They may be Really
Cool, but are far too vulnerable to breakdowns."