Re: [HACKERS] Performance while loading data and indexing - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Rod Taylor
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Performance while loading data and indexing
Date
Msg-id 1033077816.27772.9.camel@jester
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Performance while loading data and indexing  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 17:47, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
> > > Yes, before UFS had soft updates, the synchronous nature of UFS made it
> > > slower than ext2, but now with soft updates, that performance difference
> > > is gone so you have two files systems, ext2 and ufs, similar peformance,
> > > but one is crash-safe and the other is not.
> >
> > Note entirely true.  ufs is both crash-safe and quick-rebootable.  You
> > do need to fsck at some point, but not prior to mounting it.  Any
> > corrupt blocks are empty, and are easy to avoid.
>
> I am assuming you need to mount the drive as part of the reboot.  Of
> course you can boot fast with any file system if you don't have to mount
> it.  :-)

Sorry, poor explanation.

Background fsck (when implemented) would operate on a currently mounted
(and active) file system.  The only reason fsck is required prior to
reboot now is because no-one had done the work.

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=fsck&sektion=8&manpath=FreeBSD+5.0-current

See the first paragraph of the above.
--
  Rod Taylor


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Unixprgrmr@aol.com
Date:
Subject: Fwd: detecting end of table or cursor
Next
From: Scott Chapman
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL subquery to supply table name?