From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Initial prefetch performance testing |
Date: | 2008-09-22 16:28:31 |
Message-ID: | 1222100911.4445.200.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 16:46 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 04:57 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> >
> >> -As Greg Stark suggested, the larger the spindle count the larger the
> >> speedup, and the larger the prefetch size that might make sense. His
> >> suggestion to model the user GUC as "effective_spindle_count" looks like a
> >> good one. The sequential scan fadvise implementation patch submitted uses
> >> the earlier preread_pages name for that parameter, which I agree seems
> >> less friendly.
> >
> > Good news about the testing.
> >
> > I'd prefer to set this as a tablespace level storage parameter.
>
> Sounds, like a good idea, except... what's a tablespace level storage parameter?
A storage parameter, just at tablespace level.
WITH (storage_parameter = value)
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua Drake | 2008-09-22 16:30:24 | Re: parallel pg_restore |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-22 16:24:28 | Re: parallel pg_restore |