| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: odd postgresql performance (excessive lseek) |
| Date: | 2010-10-27 03:05:10 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=8Pkj-mgtcxv-1fyix5zECGock-rOn=G=NDXrU@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net> writes:
>> This is another situation where using pread would have saved a lot of
>> time and sped things up a bit, but failing that, keeping track of the
>> file position ourselves and only lseek'ing when necessary would also
>> help.
>
> No, it wouldn't; you don't have the slightest idea what's going on
> there. Those lseeks are for the purpose of detecting the current EOF
> location, ie, finding out whether some other backend has extended the
> file recently. We could get rid of them, but only at the cost of
> putting in some other communication mechanism instead.
I don't get it. Why would be doing that in a tight loop within a
single backend?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Divakar Singh | 2010-10-27 03:10:56 | Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-27 02:56:07 | Re: HashJoin order, hash the large or small table? Postgres likes to hash the big one, why? |