Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work
Date
Msg-id 20060607214503.GZ45331@pervasive.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:05:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The other thing that was bothering me was whether disk I/O might be
> undercounted by an interrupt-driven method.  I kinda doubt that any
> kernel will save up N interrupts that occur while the process is blocked
> on a slow read() ... you'll probably get only one.  So the whole idea
> may be unworkable.

True, but if you get to the point where you're waiting on I/O, I would
think you could afford a gettimeofday() call. Even if the block we need
is in the OS cache, it's possible that the overhead of getting it from
there is high enough that the gettimeofday() call won't matter. FWIW, it
looks like running a much larger setting for shared_buffers (like, 50%
of memory) is a good way to boost performance, and that configuration
would make it less likely that you'd do a gettimeofday just to pull data
out of the OS cache.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work
Next
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: ADD/DROP INHERITS