Re: [PERFORMANCE] Insights: fseek OR read_cluster? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Antonio Rodriges
Subject Re: [PERFORMANCE] Insights: fseek OR read_cluster?
Date
Msg-id CAPrLoNc2FO0mm6vzm2rc5WRyfQmtpQAJWZpvPr+bwuAZPHZ+tA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PERFORMANCE] Insights: fseek OR read_cluster?  (Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>)
Responses Re: [PERFORMANCE] Insights: fseek OR read_cluster?
List pgsql-performance
Thank you, Craig, your answers are always insightful

> What is read_cluster()  ? Are you talking about some kind of async and/or

I meant that if you want to read a chunk of data from file you (1)
might not call traditional fseek but rather memorize hard drive
cluster numbers to boost disk seeks and, (2) perform the read of disk
cluster directly.

> direct I/O? If so, PostgreSQL is not designed for direct I/O, it benefits
> from using the OS's buffer cache, I/O scheduler, etc.
>
> IIRC Pg uses pread() to read from its data files, but I didn't go double
> check in the sources to make sure.
>
> --
> Craig Ringer
>

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Marc Cousin
Date:
Subject: Re: overzealous sorting?
Next
From: Antonio Rodriges
Date:
Subject: [PERFORMANCE] Insights: fseek OR read_cluster?