Re: WAL prefetch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: WAL prefetch
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYk=jPktH6x2P=_fagHGNrcooU3sku=sW+_7iNHTYWvBA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WAL prefetch  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: WAL prefetch
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> The posix_fadvise approach is not perfect, no doubt about that. But it
>> works pretty well for bitmap heap scans, and it's about 13249x better
>> (rough estimate) than the current solution (no prefetching).
>
> Sure, but investing in an architecture we know might not live long also
> has it's cost. Especially if it's not that complicated to do better.

My guesses are:

- Using OS prefetching is a very small patch.
- Prefetching into shared buffers is a much bigger patch.
- It'll be five years before we have direct I/O.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Claudio Freire
Date:
Subject: Re: [WIP] [B-Tree] Retail IndexTuple deletion
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL prefetch