Re: fstat vs. lseek - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: fstat vs. lseek
Date
Msg-id 25420.1312814722@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to fstat vs. lseek  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: fstat vs. lseek
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> In response to my blog post on lseek contention, someone posted a
> comment wherein they proposed using fstat() rather than lseek() to get
> file sizes.
> Patch and test results are attached.  Test runs are 5-minute runs with
> scale factor 100 and shared_buffers=8GB.

> Thoughts?

I'm a bit concerned by the fact that you've only tested this on one
operating system, and thus the performance characteristics could be
quite different elsewhere.  The comment in mdextend also points out
a way in which this might not be a win --- did you test anything besides
read-only scenarios?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: fstat vs. lseek
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: fstat vs. lseek