Re: [GENERAL] Autovacuum Improvements

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Autovacuum Improvements
Date: 2007-01-22 23:11:03
Message-ID: 20070122231102.GS64372@nasby.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 12:17:39PM -0800, Ron Mayer wrote:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
> >
> > Actually no. A while back I did experiments to see how fast reading a file
> > sequentially was compared to reading the same file sequentially but skipping
> > x% of the blocks randomly. The results were surprising (to me) and depressing.
> > The breakeven point was about 7%. [...]
> >
> > The theory online was that as long as you're reading one page from each disk
> > track you're going to pay the same seek overhead as reading the entire track.
>
> Could one take advantage of this observation in designing the DSM?
>
> Instead of a separate bit representing every page, having each bit
> represent 20 or so pages might be a more useful unit. It sounds
> like the time spent reading would be similar; while the bitmap
> would be significantly smaller.

If we extended relations by more than one page at a time we'd probably
have a better shot at the blocks on disk being contiguous and all read
at the same time by the OS.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message George Weaver 2007-01-22 23:32:13 Problems compiling from source
Previous Message Chad Wagner 2007-01-22 23:04:29 Re:

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2007-01-22 23:20:15 Re: pg_dump ANALYZE statements
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2007-01-22 22:49:46 Re: Piggybacking vacuum I/O