From: | Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: performance: use pread instead of lseek+read |
Date: | 2003-03-06 19:49:48 |
Message-ID: | 3E67A65C.7070206@colorfullife.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>BSD/OS doesn't have pread either. Isn't pread() just a case of merging
>two system calls into one? Does a single system call cause that much
>overhead? I didn't think so.
>
>
As I wrote, in a microbenchmark lseek+read(,8192) was 10% slower than
pread(,,8192).
>Doesn't pread() do the lseek() internally anyway.
>
No. pread doesn't use the file pointer at all.
This is a huge advantage if fds are shared: Two threads/processes can
read simultaneously from the same fd. This is impossible without pread -
there is only one file pointer, the threads would trash each others state.
Since postgresql doesn't share fds, the only advantage for postgresql is
the lower syscall overhead.
>>
>>
>>>- which benchmark would be interesting?
>>>
>>>
>>Something that measures the performance "in context", that is as part of
>>normal database activity, not just the syscall overhead. pgbench is
>>notoriously hard to get reproducible numbers out of, but you could try
>>it if you like.
>>
>>
I'll try that.
--
Manfred
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-03-06 20:04:43 | Re: [PATCHES] psql \pset pager always for 7.3.2 (patch) |
Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2003-03-06 19:27:27 | FAQ: Deleting all but one identical row |