Re: Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em

From: Gunnar Rønning <gunnar(at)polygnosis(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Frank Ch(dot) Eigler" <fche(at)redhat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em
Date: 2001-07-18 10:46:54
Message-ID: m2bsmi7bvl.fsf@smaug.polygnosis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

| Most Unix filesystems will not allocate disk blocks until you write in
| them. If you just seek out past end-of-file, the file pointer is moved
| but the blocks are unallocated. This is how 'ls' can show a 1gb file
| that only uses 4k of disk space.

Does this imply that we could get a performance gain by preallocating space
for indexes and data itself as well ? I've seen that other database products
have a setup step where you have to specify the size of the database.

Or does PostgreSQL do any other tricks to prevent fragmentation of data ?

--
Gunnar Rønning - gunnar(at)polygnosis(dot)com
Senior Consultant, Polygnosis AS, http://www.polygnosis.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 2001-07-18 12:35:58 Re: MySQL Gemini code
Previous Message Steve Howe 2001-07-18 08:51:09 PQexec() 8191 bytes limit and text fields