Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Markus Schaber
Subject Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as
Date
Msg-id 45123FC0.9060100@logix-tt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as  ("Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>)
Responses Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as  (Guy Thornley <guy@esphion.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Hi, Luke,

Luke Lonergan wrote:

>> I thought that posix_fadvise() with POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED was exactly
>> meant for this purpose?
>
> This is a good idea - I wasn't aware that this was possible.

This possibility was the reason for me to propose it. :-)

> We'll do some testing and see if it works as advertised on Linux and
> Solaris.

Fine, I'm looking forward to the results.

According to my small test, it works at least on linux 2.6.17.4.

Btw, posix_fadvise() could even give a small improvement for
multi-threaded backends, given that the I/O subsystem is smart enough to
cope intelligently to cope with large bunches of outstanding requests.

HTH,
Markus

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Luke Lonergan"
Date:
Subject: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as
Next
From: yoav x
Date:
Subject: PostgreSQL and sql-bench