| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> | 
| Cc: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Autovacuum Improvements | 
| Date: | 2007-01-25 22:28:32 | 
| Message-ID: | 200701252228.l0PMSWf03441@momjian.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers | 
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> 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.
Actually, there is evidence that adding only a single page to the end
causes a lot of contention for that last page, and that adding a few
might be better.
-- 
  Bruce Momjian   bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | julio.caicedo | 2007-01-25 22:29:20 | Ayuda sobre Indices | 
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2007-01-25 22:07:29 | Re: column limit | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2007-01-25 22:33:16 | Re: No ~ operator for box, point | 
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-25 22:10:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Win32 WEXITSTATUS too |