| From: | Florian Weimer <fw(at)deneb(dot)enyo(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
| Date: | 2006-05-18 05:36:11 |
| Message-ID: | 87ac9fuc6s.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Jim C. Nasby:
> The problem is that it seems like there's never enough ability to clue
> the OS in on what the application is trying to accomplish. For a long
> time we didn't have a background writer, because the OS should be able
> to flush things out on it's own before checkpoint. Now there's talk of a
> background reader, because backends keep stalling on waiting on disk IO.
I've recently seen this on one of our test systems -- neither CPU nor
disk I/O were maxed out.
Have you considered using asynchronous I/O? Maybe it results in less
complexity and fewer context switches than a background reader.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-05-18 05:43:55 | Re: PL/pgSQL 'i = i + 1' Syntax |
| Previous Message | Florian Weimer | 2006-05-18 05:21:17 | Re: PL/pgSQL 'i = i + 1' Syntax |