Re: posix_fadvise v22 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: posix_fadvise v22
Date
Msg-id 24481.1230910405@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: posix_fadvise v22  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
Responses Re: posix_fadvise v22  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> 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.

ISTM that you *should* be able to see an improvement on even
single-spindle systems, due to better overlapping of CPU and I/O effort.
If the test case is either 100% CPU-bound or 100% I/O-bound then no,
but for anything in between there ought to be improvement.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Including kerberos realm
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels