Re: Bitmap index scan preread using posix_fadvise (Was: There's random access and then there's random access)

From: Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Subject: Re: Bitmap index scan preread using posix_fadvise (Was: There's random access and then there's random access)
Date: 2008-02-02 17:53:27
Message-ID: C3C9EE17.52921%llonergan@greenplum.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Nice!

- Luke

On 1/30/08 9:22 AM, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

>
> Here's the WIP patch for doing prereading when doing bitmap index scans.
>
> I was performance testing it as I was developing it here:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-12/msg00395.php
>
> Note that this only kicks in for bitmap index scans which are kind of tricky
> to generate. I used the attached function to generate them in the post above.
>
> Also note I wouldn't expect to see much benefit unless you're on a raid array,
> even a small one. But if you are on a raid array then the benefit should be
> immediately obvious or else posix_fadvise just isn't working for you. I would
> be interested in hearing on which OSes it does or doesn't work.
>
> *If* this is the approach we want to take rather than restructure the buffer
> manager to avoid taking two trips by marking the buffer i/o-in-progress and
> saving the pinned buffer in the bitmap heap scan then this is more or less in
> final form. Aside from some autoconf tests and the documentation for the GUC I
> think it's all in there.
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-02-03 02:53:23 Proposed patch for bug #3921
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-02-01 15:50:16 Re: [PATCHES] Better default_statistics_target