| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Closing some 8.4 open items |
| Date: | 2009-04-08 17:22:01 |
| Message-ID: | 937d27e10904081022t6240ae5eq47355c9a4a1ba2d@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday, April 8, 2009, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 4/8/09 9:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Josh Berkus<josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>
> What about seq scans?
>
>
> If the kernel can't read-ahead a seqscan by itself, it's unlikely to
> be smart enough to be helped by posix_fadvise ... or at least so I
> would think. Do you have reason to think differently?
>
>
> Well, Solaris 10 + UFS should be helped by fadvise -- in theory at least, it would eliminate the need to modify your mount points for better readahead when setting up a PG-Solaris server. Solaris-UFS quite lazy about readahead. Zdenek, Jignesh?
>
> You're probably correct about Linux and FreeBSD. I don't know if OSX + HFS supports fadvise. If so, it could only help; readahead on HFS right now is nonexistant.
>
> Presumably fadvise is useless on Windows. Anyone know?
It is.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-04-08 17:23:22 | Re: Closing some 8.4 open items |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-04-08 17:10:20 | Re: Closing some 8.4 open items |