From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] TODO Item - Add system view to show free |
Date: | 2005-10-29 19:57:08 |
Message-ID: | 1130615828.8300.1295.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 18:43 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 05:05:25PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > 3. Helping Readahead efficiency: Currently blocks are allocated one at a
> > time. If many tables are extending at the same time, the blocks from
> > multiple tables will be intermixed together on the disk. Reading the
> > data back takes more head movement and reduces the I/O rate. Allocating
>
> Ok, I agree with the rest but this isn't true. Any filesystem designed
> in the last ten years leaves gaps around the place so when you extend a
> file it remains consecutive. Some filesystems (like XFS) take it to
> extremes). Interleaving blocks with this pattern hasn't been done since
> FAT.
>
> That isn't to say that preextending isn't a good idea. With my pread()
> patch it was the one use of lseek() I couldn't remove.
>
> Other than that, good thought...
Thanks. I wasn't aware of that.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-29 22:51:57 | Re: [ADMIN] Fatal error |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-10-29 19:16:10 | Re: The argument for reinstating --as-needed |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Seltenreich | 2005-10-30 01:51:52 | typo in psql-ref |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-29 17:42:42 | Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted? |