Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: posix_fadvise v22

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 10:08:13
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.

I've got a stack of hardware I can do performance testing of this patch 
on, what I haven't been able to find time for is setting up any sort of 
test harness right now.  If you or Greg have any benchmark or test program 
you could suggest that should show off the improvements here, I'd be glad 
to run it on a bunch of systems and report back--I've already got a stack 
of candidate ones I ran the earlier tests on to compare results against.

* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com Baltimore, MD

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2009-01-02 10:13:10
Subject: Re: new libpq SSL connection option
Previous:From: Guillaume LelargeDate: 2009-01-02 10:02:36
Subject: Re: Latest version of Hot Standby patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group