| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Julius Stroffek" <Julius(dot)Stroffek(at)sun(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Dano Vojtek" <danielkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi CPU Queries - Feedback and/or suggestions wanted! |
| Date: | 2008-10-23 22:15:12 |
| Message-ID: | 36e682920810231515s3cdbce99kc5272eff2105be22@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think the current plan is to use posix_advise() to allow parallel I/O,
>> rather than async I/O becuase posix_advise() will require fewer code
>> changes.
>
> These are not necessarily mutually exclusive designs. fadvise works fine on
> Linux, but as far as I know only async I/O works on Solaris. Linux also has
> an async I/O library, and it's not clear to me yet whether that might work
> even better than the fadvise approach.
fadvise is a kludge. While it will help, it still makes us completely
reliant on the OS. For performance reasons, we should be supporting a
multi-block read directly into shared buffers. IIRC, we currently
have support for rings in the buffer pool, which we could read
directly into. Though, an LRU-based buffer manager design would be
more optimal in this case.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-10-24 00:43:40 | Re: SSL README |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-10-23 21:41:43 | Re: SSL README |