From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | molson(at)oceanconsulting(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Prefetch |
Date: | 2005-05-10 14:16:20 |
Message-ID: | 10061.1115734580@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Matt Olson <molson(at)oceanconsulting(dot)com> writes:
> Other databases like Oracle and DB2 implement some sort of row prefetch. Has
> there been serious consideration of implementing something like a prefetch
> subsystem?
No.
> Does anyone have any opinions as to why this would be a bad idea for
> postgres?
We know even less than the OS does about disk layout, and not a lot more
than it about what our next request will be. (If we're doing a seqscan,
then of course that's not true, but I would expect the OS to be able to
figure that one out and do readahead.)
You haven't shown us your problem queries, but I think that conventional
query tuning would be a more appropriate answer. In particular I wonder
whether you shouldn't be looking at ways to calculate multiple
aggregates in parallel.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2005-05-10 14:17:59 | Re: Prefetch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-10 13:53:18 | Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL |